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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 iU.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 1-2, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Попова et al. (RU 190 404) in view of Barillot et al. (US 2004/0140737).
Regarding claim 1, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses piezoelectric pointing device comprising:
a fixed frame (1);
piezoelectric actuators (figures 3-4) fixed to the fixed frame, the piezoelectric actuators being able to deform independently from one another with a linear translation, each linear translation being directed in a first direction (see at least page 4, second paragraph);
a plate that forms a mirror carrier (5; figures 3-4) designed to receive and support a mirror;
a converter (6) arranged in at least one mechanical link connecting the piezoelectric actuators and the support points so that linear translation of one or more of the piezoelectric actuators results in rotation of the support area with respect to the fixed frame around said at least a first rotation axis (see at least page 4, second paragraph);
wherein the mirror carrier is in the form of a plate defining the attachment points and the at least three support points and wherein the mirror carrier is deformable so that at least one of the at least three support points is a support point mounted movable independently from the other support points in the first direction by elastic deformation of the mirror carrier, in the absence of the mirror (6 and portions of the angle sensors as shown in figure 4).
Попова et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Попова et al. is silent regarding the support points. Barillot et al. (figures 3-14) teaches the plate (39; figure 10) having least three support points (10) being configured to fixedly mount a mirror on the plate, the at least three support points defining-being non-aligned to define a support area mounted rotatable with respect to the fixed frame around at least a first rotation axis (X or Y axis; figure 13; see at least paragraph 0075); the plate is a deformable plate (at least one elastomer material zone designed to dampen deformations of the actuator 10 and to increase the capacity of the actuator to resist external forces; see at least paragraph 0057), at least one of the at least three support points is a support point mounted to be movable independently from the other support points in the first direction by elastic deformation of the plate in absence of the mirror, the first direction is perpendicular to the first rotation axis, the plate has attachment points different from the at least three support points, each of the attachment points being functionally connected to an end of one of the piezoelectric actuators in the absence of the mirror, a movement of at least one of the piezoelectric actuators being configured to move the mirror carrier (three actuators 10 with two degrees of freedom arranged as a tripod can form a mechanism 39 with six degrees of freedom. These arrangements have the advantage of forming isostatic mechanisms, particularly advantageous in the optics field. For such devices, it is in fact particularly important not to deform the mirror; see at least paragraph 0073). 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 plate as taught by Barillot et al. in order to dampen deformations and increase the capacity of the actuator to resist external stresses.
The limitation, “the piezoelectric actuators being able to deform independently from one another with a linear translation, each linear translation being directed in a first direction, a converter arranged in at least one mechanical link connecting the piezoelectric actuators and the support points so that linear translation of one or more of the piezoelectric actuators results in rotation of the support area with respect to the fixed frame around said at least a first rotation axis, the at least three support points defining-being non-aligned to define a support area mounted rotatable with respect to the fixed frame around at least a first rotation axis, one of the at least three support points is a support point mounted to be movable independently from the other support points in the first direction by elastic deformation of the plate in absence of the mirror, the first direction is perpendicular to the first rotation axis, each of the attachment points being functionally connected to an end of one of the piezoelectric actuators in the absence of the mirror, a movement of at least one of the piezoelectric actuators being configured to move the mirror carrier” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Попова et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses wherein each support point is a support point mounted movable independently from the other support points in the first direction by elastic deformation of a part of the mirror carrier, in the absence of the mirror (8, 11; see at least page 4, first and second paragraphs).
The limitation, “wherein each support point is a support point mounted movable independently from the other support points in the first direction by elastic deformation of a part of the mirror carrier, in the absence of the mirror” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Попова et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 22, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses a mirror fixed to the mirror carrier by means of the support points, the mirror defining a mechanical connection with the support points that fixes the position of the at least one support point that is movable with respect to the other support points (8, 11; see at least page 4, first and second paragraphs).
The limitation, “the mirror defining a mechanical connection with the support points that fixes the position of the at least one support point that is movable with respect to the other support points” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Попова et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Попова et al. (RU 190 404) in view of Barillot et al. (US 2004/0140737); further in view of Choi et al. (WO 0217382).
Regarding claim 3, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Попова et al. is silent regarding a plurality of mounting plates, each support point being mounted on a mounting plate, wherein each mounting plate is fixed to the rest of the mirror carrier by a flexural link so that each mounting plate is mounted movable independently from the other mounting plates in the first direction, in the absence of the mirror. Choi et al. (figure 33) teaches flexural links (124, 126, 128). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the links as taught by Choi et al. in order to achieve systems for precise positioning of an object along an axis or within a plane. Therefore, Попова et al. as modified by Barillot et al. and Choi et al. teaches the plate comprises a plurality of mounting plates, each support point being mounted on a mounting plate, wherein each mounting plate is fixed to the rest of the mirror carrier by a flexural link so that each mounting plate is mounted movable independently from the other mounting plates in the first direction, in the absence of the mirror, and the plate comprises pass-through slots delineating the mounting plates (slots of 124, 126, 128 as shown in figure 33).
The limitation, “wherein each mounting plate is fixed to the rest of the mirror carrier by a flexural link so that each mounting plate is mounted movable independently from the other mounting plates in the first direction, in the absence of the mirror” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Попова et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. (figure 33) teaches the support points (within 124) are arranged at equal distance from a centre, and the flexural links are arranged closer to the centre than the support points in an observation in the first direction (figures 32-33).
Regarding claim 7, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses wherein the mounting plates are configured to move in at least one direction perpendicular to the first direction (see at least page 4, first and second paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Попова et al. as modified by Barillot et al. and Choi et al. teaches wherein the support points are arranged at equal distance from a centre, and the flexural link is also configured to allow a radial movement of the support points perpendicularly to the first direction and with respect to the centre.
Regarding claim 9, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses additional mounting plates (5), wherein the centre is mounted fixedly with respect to the fixed frame by means of an anchor stud (6, 15), and wherein arms extend from the centre, each arm being fixed to one of the additional mounting plates by a torsional link (4), the torsional link making the arm tilt with respect to the additional mounting plate around an axis perpendicular to the first direction, each additional mounting plate receiving an attachment point (figures 1-3) and Hопова et al. as modified by Barillot et al. and Choi et al. teaches each arm being fixed to one of the mounting plates by the flexural link.
Regarding claim 11, Попова et al. (figures 1-4) discloses wherein the torsional link is arranged closer to the centre than the support point, in an observation in the first direction (figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Choi et al. (figure 33) teaches wherein each flexural link has a portion in the shape of an arc of a circle around the centre (124, 126, 128).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights