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
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 09/30/25 regarding Drawings Objection on page 6, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants argues “as outlined in MPEP 608.02 Drawing [R-07.2015], the statutory requirement for showing the claimed invention only requires that the "applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented..." (See 35 U.S.C. 113, See also 37 CFR §1.81(a), which states "[t]he applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented..."). In the pending application, we respectfully submit that FIG. 2 clearly shows reference numerals "206(1)" and "206(2)," which represent the "pair of stacked wedges" claimed. Indeed, paragraph [0031] of the application as published states:
Examples of mechanisms that may be used for each rotator 206 include a tip-tilt stage, a two-axis goniometer, a ball-and-socket stage, a pitch-and-yaw platform, a one-axis goniometer mounted on a rotation stage, a one-axis tilt stage mounted on a rotation stage, and a pair of stacked wedges independently rotatable about a common axis.
Thus, the person of skill in the art would understand that FIG. 2 is a drawing furnished to support the claimed "first pair of rotatable wedges" and "second pair of rotatable wedges." We therefore respectfully request that the objection be removed”.
First: All the features in the claimed invention must be shown in the drawing(s). The drawing must disclose all the distinctive characteristics of the plant capable of visual representation, (MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.165), if they do not describe the views of the drawing clearly and accurately, the examiner should object to the unclear and/or inaccurate descriptions and suggest language, which provides clear and accurate descriptions, and suggest language which is more clearly descriptive of the views, (MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.1067). The amended independent claims 1, 13, contain wording “rotatable wedges”. However, the wedge is not described/disclosed in any figures. Therefore, it is not clear how figure 2 can be furnished to support the claimed "first pair of rotatable wedges" and "second pair of rotatable wedges"? In the other words, a set of drawing(s) must be amended to disclose "first pair of rotatable wedges" and "second pair of rotatable wedges" is required.
Second: There is no standard definition/explanation/structure for wording “rotatable wedges” in current specification, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention for this wording. In the other words, the claims do not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. In the other words, the claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.
Third: According to the following dictionaries, wording “wedges” has the following definitions:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wedge
a piece of a substance (such as wood or iron) that tapers to a thin edge and is used for splitting wood and rocks, raising heavy bodies, or for tightening by being driven into something
something wedge-shaped.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wedge
a piece of metal, wood, rubber, etc. with a pointed edge at one end and a wide edge at the other, either pushed between two objects to keep them still or forced into something to break pieces off it.
a piece of something, especially food, in the shape of a triangle.
Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted as one of the meanings of above dictionaries.
3. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 09/30/25 regarding rejected claims on pages 7-8, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “as shown in Figure 12, is rotating member 1214 ever described as being a pair of rotatable wedges. Nor is rotating member 1214 described, or shown, as being wedged. A pair of rotatable wedges can be rotated relative to each other to change the angles of an object affixed to the rotatable wedges. Wang, as cited, does not teach (or suggest) any type of wedged component that can be rotated to change the angle of an object”. This argument is not correct.
As explained in the above paragraph 2, wedge could be interpreted as a piece of a substance that tapers to a thin edge, or something wedge-shaped, or any piece in the shape of a triangle. Wang teaches socket 1220 or rotating member 1214 in figure 12, and socket 1320 or rotating member 1314 in figure 13, which is not different from a wedge. Further, Wang also teaches rotating members 1214, 1314, or sockets 1220, 1320, in figures 12, 13, which can be rotated relative to each other to change the angles of an object (figure 16, payloads 1604a, 1604 are not different from objects; [0258-0259]; Figures 16, 17).
4. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed on 10/06/23. These drawings are objected because “pair of wedges” in the specification are not described clearly in drawings. (Please see paragraph 2 above).
For the purpose of examination, as explained in paragraph 2 above, the amended claims 1, 13, are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
Wedge: a piece of a substance that tapers to a thin edge, or something wedge-shaped, or any piece in the shape of a triangle.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Amended claims 1, 13, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following wordings “rotatable wedges” render the claims indefinite because the wordings are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard definition/explanation/structure for ascertaining the requisite degree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
There is no a standard definition/explanation/structure for wording “rotatable wedges” in current specification, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention for this wording. In the other words, the claims do not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. In the other words, the claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.
Therefore, the claims 1, 13, are 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 pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
For the purpose of examination, as explained in the above paragraphs 2, 3, the amended claims 1, 13, are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
Wedge: a piece of a substance that tapers to a thin edge, or something wedge-shaped, or any piece in the shape of a triangle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-6, 10-15, 17, 19-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0373173). Hereafter “Wang”.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, Wang teaches a dual-beam optomechanical steerer (figure 2 is not different from a dual-beam optomechanical steerer), comprising:
a two-axis gimbal system (figure 2, element 206a-b);
a first rotator mounted to the two-axis gimbal system ([0161], lines 9-11; [0183], lines 7-11; [0184, lines 8-9; [0210], lines 4-8; [0217], lines 16-21; [0219, 0225, 0228, 0259]), configured to receive a first optical transmitter ([0087]), and adjustable to rotate the first optical transmitter ([0225, 0228, 259]; Figures 16, 17, payloads 1604a, 1604b, 1704a, 1704b is not different from first and second optical transmitter), the first rotator comprising a first pair of rotatable wedges (socket 1220 or rotating member 1214 in figure 12, and socket 1320 or rotating member 1314 in figure 13, is not different from a rotatable wedge. Please see the above paragraphs 2, 3); and
a second rotator mounted to the two-axis gimbal system ([0161], lines 9-11; [0183], lines 7-11; [0184, lines 8-9; [0210], lines 4-8; [0217], lines 16-21; [0219, 0225, 0228, 0259, 0265]), configured to receive a second optical transmitter ([0087]), and adjustable to rotate the second optical transmitter ([0225, 0228, 259]; Figures 16, 17, payloads 1604a, 1604b, 1704a, 1704b is not different from first and second optical transmitter), the second rotator comprising a second pair of rotatable wedges (socket 1220 or rotating member 1214 in figure 12, and socket 1320 or rotating member 1314 in figure 13, is not different from a rotatable wedge. Please see the above paragraphs 2, 3).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 14, Wang teaches the first rotator is adjustable to rotate the first optical transmitter to a first azimuth and a first elevation angle/range; and the second rotator is adjustable to rotate the second optical transmitter to a second azimuth different from the first azimuth, and a second elevation angle different from the first elevation angle/range ([0161], lines 9-11; [0183], lines 7-11; [0184, lines 8-9; [0210], lines 4-8; [0217], lines 16-21; [0219, 0225, 0228, 0258, 0265, 0267, 0268]; figures 16-17).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang teaches first and second azimuthal ranges are similar; and the first and second elevation angular ranges are similar ([0228, 0258, 0265, 0267, 0268]; figures 16-17).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang teaches the two-axis gimbal system including a motor ([0069, 0083, 0084], [0145] lines 1-7, [0149] lines 1-7, [0445] lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches each of the first and second rotators including a motor ([0069, 0083, 0084], [0145] lines 1-7, [0149] lines 1-7, [0445] lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang teaches each of the first and second rotators is one of a tip-tilt stage, a ball-and-socket stage, a two-axis goniometer, and a one-axis goniometer combined with a rotation stage (figures 2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches each of the first and second rotators further comprising a pair of rotation stages for rotating the pair of wedges (figures 12, 13, elements 1212, 1312 are not different from a pair of rotation stages for rotating the pair of wedges 1214, 1314).
Regarding Claims 11, 19, Wang teaches the first and second optical transmitters ([0087]; [0155] lines 3-8; [0240], lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches the first and second optical transmitters is an optical transceiver ([0087]; [0155] lines 3-8; [0240], lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches adjusting the first rotator includes controlling at least one motor of the first rotator to deviate the first optical transmitter; and said adjusting the second rotator includes controlling at least one motor of the second rotator to deviate the second optical transmitter ([0161], lines 9-11; [0183], lines 7-11; [0184, lines 8-9; [0210], lines 4-8; [0217], lines 16-21; [0219, 0225, 0228, 0258, 0265, 0267, 0268]; figures 16-17).
Regarding Claim 20, Wang teaches mounting the first optical transmitter to the first rotator; and mounting the second optical transmitter to the second rotator (figure 2, payload 208a-b contains transmitter).
Regarding Claim 21, Wang teaches the first optical transmitter is a first optical transceiver; the second optical transmitter is a second optical transceiver; and the beamsteering method further includes simultaneously: receiving a first laser beam with the first optical transceiver; and receiving a second laser beam with the second optical transceiver, ([0087]; [0155] lines 3-8; [0240], lines 6-14; figures 2-4, payloads 208a-b, 308a-b, 408a-b contain optical transmitter and optical transceiver).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claim(s) 7, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0373173) in view of Wolfgan et al. (CN 102419440). Hereafter “Wang” and “Wolfgan”. (Please see attached file for Wolfgan’s reference in previous office action).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 16, Wang teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 13, as stated above except for a piezoelectric actuator. Wolfgan teaches a piezoelectric actuator, ([0018, 0060]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wang by having a piezoelectric actuator in order to drive the gimbal efficiently ([0060]).
Conclusion
12. 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.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 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.
October 24, 2025
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877