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 claims 15-19 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 have been withdrawn. Claims 15-19 remain pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/925,257, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of the aforementioned provisional application fails to fully provide adequate support for a first, second and supplemental battery, a power management circuit, a wireless communication system, or the use of a first optical detector and a second optical detector, or support for the claimed subject matter relating to the pinhole aperture and associated structures.
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 62/935,709 and Application No. 17/028,398, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of the aforementioned provisional application and non-provisional application fails to fully provide adequate support for a power management circuit.
The priority date of withdrawn claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 will be given as November 15, 2019 corresponding to the prior-filed provision application 62/935,709. The priority date of withdrawn claims 4 and 9 will be given as December 8, 2022 corresponding to the filing date of the current application. The priority date of pending claims 15-19 will be given as November 15, 2019 corresponding to the prior-filed provisional application 62/935,709.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/05/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US20120154784A1) in view of Heidemann (US20170067734A1), McLeod (US6256271B1), and Lee, et al. ("Dual-detection confocal fluorescence microscopy: fluorescence axial imaging without axial scanning," Opt. Express 21, 17839-17848 (2013)).
Regarding claim 15, Kaufman teaches a device comprising:
a beam-steering system (Fig. 16) operable to project a pattern of laser light onto an object (paragraph [0002]), the beam-steering system including a first galvanometer operable to rotate a first mirror (first mirror 5, Fig. 16; examiner is interpreting the disclosure of Fig. 6 which depicts the mirror 5 to be rotated by a galvanometer 203 to apply to the mirrors of Fig. 16 as well) and a second galvanometer operable to rotate a second mirror (second mirror 6; examiner is interpreting the disclosure of Fig. 6 which depicts the mirror 6 to be rotated by galvanometer 204 to apply to the mirrors of Fig. 16 as well),
a first optical detector is operably coupled to the beam-steering system and is configured to detect laser light reflected the object (10, Fig. 16);
a second optical detector (501, Fig. 16), the second optical detector having a higher sensitivity than the first optical detector (paragraph [0084] discloses one detector is a photomultiplier tube; paragraph [0141] discloses a second detector is a photodiode, which is less sensitive than a photomultiplier tube);
a beam splitter positioned to send a first portion of the laser light reflected from the object to the first optical detector (4, Fig. 16), and a processor (paragraph [0026] discloses a computer which has a processor) is operably coupled to the first optical detector, the second optical detector, and the beam-steering system, the processor being operable to detect features of the object based at least in part on the measured first angle, the measured second angle (paragraphs [0105], [0113] disclose determining features based in part by the angles of illumination from mirror rotation).
Kaufman fails to teach the second optical detector the first galvanometer further including a first angle transducer to measure a first angle of rotation of the first mirror, the second galvanometer including a second angle transducer to measure a second angle of rotation of the second mirror;
the second optical detector is operably coupled to the beam-steering system to detect the laser light reflected from the object,
a beam splitter positioned to send a second portion of the laser light reflected from the object to the second optical detector; and
the processor being operable to detect features of the object based at least in part on at least one of the optical power of the first portion and the optical power of the second portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor optical systems to project laser patterns, Heidemann teaches the use of angle transducers to measure the rotation of the projected pattern (paragraph [0069]). Heidemann further teaches the use of detected optical power to determine features of an object (paragraphs [0067], [0081]).
Kaufman uses the angle of the projected light to determine a feature of the object (paragraph [0113]), therefore it would be important to accurately know the angle. Heidemann discloses angle transducers are capable of accurately measuring this angle (paragraph [0069]). Further, Heidemann teaches uses the optical power collected in feature determination is well-known in the art (paragraph [0081]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably use the well-known method of using optical power and achieve the expected result of determining a feature. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the galvanometers and processor of Kaufman with the transducer and method of using the output optical power taught in Heidemann in order to accurately measure the angle of light and determine a feature of the object.
Kaufman as modified by Heidemann fails to teach the second optical detector is operably coupled to the beam-steering system to detect the laser light reflected from the object, and
a beam splitter positioned to send a second portion of the laser light reflected from the object to the second optical detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser projections onto an object, McLeod teaches a beam splitter (138, Fig. 6) which sends light reflected back from an object to a first and second detector (column 7, lines 18-34).
Lee, et al. discloses the use of two detectors in a similar imaging system to that of McLeod allows for axial (depth) features of an object to be determined without the need for scanning, which speeds up the system (Lee, et al: abstract). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Kaufman as modified by Heidemann with the beam splitter sending output light to two detectors as taught in McLeod in order to enable more information on the object's features to be determined while still maintaining a favorable speed of the system.
Regarding claim 16, Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. teach the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the sensitivity of the second optical detector is at least one hundred times higher than the sensitivity of the first optical detector (Kaufman: paragraph [0084] discloses the first detector is a photomultiplier tube; paragraph [0141] discloses the second detector is a photodiode, which is less sensitive than a photomultiplier tube; a photomultiplier tube is at least one hundred times more sensitive than a photodiode, see supplemental material titled "APD vs PMT and Beyond" from ThermoFisher).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US20120154784A1) in view of Heidemann (US20170067734A1), McLeod (US6256271B1), and Lee, et al. ("Dual-detection confocal fluorescence microscopy: fluorescence axial imaging without axial scanning," Opt. Express 21, 17839-17848 (2013)) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hashimoto (JPH08124828A).
Regarding claim 17, Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. teach the invention as explained above in claim 16, and further teaches a pinhole aperture (Kaufman: 9, Fig. 16); and
a lens operable to focus the laser light reflected from the object (Kaufman: 8, Fig. 16); the pinhole aperture to pass the focused laser light to the beam splitter (McLeod: Fig. 6 depicts the light going through pinhole 124 to beam splitter 138).
Pinholes are well-known in the art and widely used to ensure the light passing through is in focus (McLeod: Fig. 7A; column 8, lines 8-35). Placing the pinhole before the beam splitter as taught in McLeod rather than after the beam splitter ensures the light reaching the detectors is in focus, and simplifies the setup by placing the pinhole in one spot rather than two spots in front of both detectors. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Kaufman as modified by Heidemann and McLeod with the placement of the pinhole before the beam splitter as taught by McLeod in order to ensure the detectors are receiving focused light while keeping a simple setup.
Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. fails to teach a pinhole adjustment mechanism operable to adjust the position of the pinhole aperture
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical systems projecting patterns onto objects, Hashimoto teaches a pinhole adjustment mechanism which changes the position of the pinhole (paragraph [0009]).
Hashimoto discloses the adjustment mechanism ensures the desired light distribution is achieved while shortening the alignment time (paragraph [0017]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. with the pinhole adjustment mechanism taught in Hashimoto in order to ensure the desired light output is achieved in a short time.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US20120154784A1) in view of Heidemann (US20170067734A1), McLeod (US6256271B1), Lee, et al. ("Dual-detection confocal fluorescence microscopy: fluorescence axial imaging without axial scanning," Opt. Express 21, 17839-17848 (2013)) and Hashimoto (JPH08124828A) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Schleipen (US6243203B1).
Regarding claim 18, Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod, Lee, et al. and Hashimoto teach the invention as explained above in claim 17, and further teaches a housing to hold the lens and the pinhole aperture (Kaufman: Fig. 5 shows the device, which includes the lens and pinhole aperture, in a housing, 100).
Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod, Lee, et al. and Hashimoto fails to teach the housing being at least partially covered with a coating to suppress scattering of light between the lens and the pinhole aperture.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical devices, Schleipen discloses the use of a coating to suppress unwanted light (column 2, lines 10-14).
The use of coatings to suppress unwanted light is well-known and widely used in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the known technique of applying a coating to the housing taught in Kaufman and achieve the predictable result of suppressing light. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod, Lee, et al. and Hashimoto with the coating taught in Schleipen to achieve the expected result of suppressing light.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US20120154784A1) in view of Heidemann (US20170067734A1), McLeod (US6256271B1), and Lee, et al. ("Dual-detection confocal fluorescence microscopy: fluorescence axial imaging without axial scanning," Opt. Express 21, 17839-17848 (2013)) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hashimoto (JPH08124828A) and Yamakazi (JP2002244005A).
Regarding claim 19, Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. teach the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches a pinhole aperture (Kaufman: 9, Fig. 16).
Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. fails to teach a pinhole x-y adjustment mechanism having a first screw and a first spring that each push in a first direct direction against the pinhole aperture, the first spring arranged to apply a force opposing the push of the first screw, the pinhole x-y adjustment further having a second screw and a second spring that each push in a second direction against the pinhole aperture, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction, the second spring arranged to apply a force opposing the push of the second screw;
a pinhole z-adjustment mechanism having a tube with external threads, a ring with internal threads, and a third spring, the ring being placed over the pinhole x-y adjustment mechanism and the third spring and then screwed onto the tube, the ring constraining a z-position of the pinhole x-y adjustment mechanism while providing access to the first screw and the second screw for adjusting the x-y position of the pinhole aperture.
However, Hashimoto teaches a pinhole adjustment mechanism (Fig. 2; paragraph [0020]) which has a first screw and second screw (attached to pulse motors 7c and 7d, paragraphs [0012], [0020]) which push in two different directions which are perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 7).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine device of Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod and Lee, et al. with the pinhole adjustment mechanism taught in Hashimoto in order to ensure the desired light output is achieved in a short time.
Kaufman as modified by Heidemann, McLeod, Lee, et al. and Hashimoto fails to teach a first spring arranged to apply a force opposing the push of the first screw, and a second spring arranged to apply a force opposing the push of the second screw;
a pinhole z-adjustment mechanism having a tube with external threads, a ring with internal threads, and a third spring, the ring being placed over the pinhole x-y adjustment mechanism and the third spring and then screwed onto the tube, the ring constraining a z-position of the pinhole x-y adjustment mechanism while providing access to the first screw and the second screw for adjusting the x-y position of the pinhole aperture.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pinhole adjustment mechanisms, Yamakazi teaches two springs (113, 123, Fig. 8) that oppose two screws moving in two different directions (111, 121, Fig. 8; paragraph [0012]). Yamakazi also teaches a z-adjust mechanism (130, Fig. 7; paragraph [0004]) with a tube having external threads (132, Fig. 7; paragraph [0013]), a ring with internal threads (131, Fig. 7; paragraph [0013]), a third spring (134, Fig. 7; paragraph [0013]), a ring over the entire adjustment mechanism which constrains the z-position (140, Fig. 7; the examiner is interpreting the z-position to be along the left-right axis of Fig. 7; it is the position of the examiner that this structure could only move so far in the z-direction, thus constraining the adjustment mechanisms) while proving access to the first and second screws (See Fig. 8, which shows a view of the adjustment mechanism where both screws 111 and 121 are accessible).
Yamakazi discloses an advantage of the optical adjustment mechanism described is the lack of rattling and other instabilities during movement, which leads to inaccuracy in positioning and reduces productivity while increasing production cost (paragraph [0078]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Kaufman as modified by Heidemann and Mcleod and Hashimoto with the adjustment mechanism of Yamakazi in order increase accuracy and productivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877