DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claim 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable after addressing the 112(b) issues and being rewritten in independent form to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Election/Restrictions
3. Newly submitted claims 28-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
4. Claim 28 adds a method step acquisition sequence that neither claim 17 nor the originally examined claims require. First, claim 28 requires the single-pixel detector to collect a signal for each projected two-dimensional spatial pattern, whereas claim 17 only requires a detector that “collects a signal”, with no per-pattern correspondence. Second, claim 28 requires the facet scanning motion to be synchronized with pattern updating as the single-pixel detector collects the signals, whereas claim 17’s synchronization is limited to the SLM and polygonal mirror being connected for simultaneous and synchronous operation and does not bring the detector into the timing relationship. Third, claim 28 requires the reconstruction to recover an inferred image from the collected signals, whereas claim 17 requires only that the processing unit reconstructs an image. Consequently, the apparatus of claim 17 can be used to practice a materially different process. For example, one in which the detector integrates signal over a facet sweep spanning multiple patterns, or samples asynchronously to the pattern updates, and in which the image is reconstructed directly rather than inferred (MPEP 806.05(h)). Because the detector-synchronized, per-pattern acquisition and inferential recovery of claim 28 were never presented in the original claims and are not required by claim 17, claims 28-36 are directed to an invention distinct from that originally claimed.
5. In addition, claims 28-36 directed to a method for single-pixel imaging requires a search in image data process and 2-dimensional image generation, specifically in G06T11/00. The original presentation and claims 27-27 are directed to a single pixel-imaging system primarily require a search in optical devices or arrangements for control of light, classified in G02B26/00. Searching in one group would likely not yield results in the other.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 28-36 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
8. The drawings, filed 21 July 2026, have been accepted. The objection of colored drawings has been withdrawn
Specification
9. The amendment with respect to the specification, filed 21 July 2026, has been entered. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
11. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “optics” in claim 17.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for “optics” is taken to include a mirror, and lenses (according to [0013], [0073] of the instant specification).
Response to Amendment
12. Applicant’s amendments, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the newly amended claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the newly amended claims 17-27 have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made. See detailed rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. 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.
15. Claims 17-27 is 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.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites “the detector,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites a single-pixel detector, but a detector is not introduced. It is unclear if the detector refers to the same single-pixel detector or not.
Claims 18-27 depend on claim 17 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites “the detector”, which lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 23:
Claim 23 recites “the processing unit”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17 recites a parallelized processing unit, it is unclear whether “the processing unit” refer to the parallelized processing unit or not.
Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 recites “wherein the signal collected by the detector is digitized and transferred to the processing unit,” which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the detector and processing unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure, or is simply a result of operating the detector and processing unit in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
“The detector” as recited in claim 25 lacks antecedent basis.
Furthermore, “the processing unit” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17 recites a parallelized processing unit, it is unclear whether “the processing unit” refer to the parallelized processing unit or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claim 17-19, 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hahamovich, E., Monin, S., Hazan, Y. et al. Single pixel imaging at megahertz switching rates via cyclic Hadamard masks. Nat Commun 12, 4516 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24850-x (hereinafter Hahamovich), in view of Jiyi Cheng, Chenglin Gu, Dapeng Zhang, Dien Wang, and Shih-Chi Chen, "Ultrafast axial scanning for two-photon microscopy via a digital micromirror device and binary holography," Opt. Lett. 41, 1451-1454 (2016) (hereinafter Cheng), further in view of Higham, C.F., Murray-Smith, R., Padgett, M.J. et al. Deep learning for real-time single-pixel video. Sci Rep 8, 2369 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20521-y (hereinafter Higham). [Note: references were supplied in previous correspondence]
Regarding claim 17:
Hahamovich teaches a single-pixel imaging system for an object, comprising (pg. 2 teaches the system configuration for single-pixel imaging):
a light source configured to emit an input beam (pg. 2 teaches using light-emitting diodes as a light source);
a spatial light modulator (SLM) (pg. 2 teaches spatial light modulators (SLMs) are used to code the illumination with a set of spatial patterns), the SLM configured to impart two-dimensional spatial patterns to the input beam (pg. 2 teaches that spatial light modulators (SLMs) are used to code the illumination with a set of spatial patterns); optics configured to illuminate pattern-forming areas of the SLM (optics is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) to include a mirror, and lenses. as shown in fig. 1, LED source illuminate the spatially coding mask along with a mirror, objective and tube lens), and project a resulting spatially structured and scanned beam onto the object (pg. 2-3 fig. 1 teaches that the resulting spatial light pattern at the output of the mask was projected onto the imaged sample using objective and tube lenses. Light reflected from the mirror is being scanned); a single-pixel detector that collects a signal reflected from or transmitted through the object (pg. 2 teaches using a single-pixel detector. pg. 3 fig. 1 teaches a photodetector detect the signal from the imaged object).
Hahamovich does not specifically teach a spatial light modulator and a rotating polygonal mirror is connected for simultaneous and synchronous operation, and the polygonal mirror scanning the input beam carrying the spatial patterns, at a constant angular speed of facets thereof; optics configured to convey a resulting structured beam to a facet of the rotating polygonal mirror.
Cheng teaches a spatial light modulator and a rotating polygonal mirror is connected for simultaneous and synchronous operation (“for simultaneous and synchronous operation” is an intended use of the connection and is given weight to the extent it structurally distinguishes the prior art. Pg. 1452, fig. 1 teaches that the incident beam hits the digital micromirror device and hits the polygon mirror. The configuration teaches that the digital micromirror device and the polygon mirror are optically connected in a common scan and operate simultaneously and synchronously on the same beam), and the polygonal mirror scanning the input beam carrying the spatial patterns (pg. 1452 teaches that the DMD simultaneously functions as a programmable binary hologram and a blazed grating, which means that the input beam hitting the DMD carries spatial patterns. Then, pg. 1452 teaches that the PM (DT-72-290-025, Lincoln Laser, USA) is custom-built with 72 facets to generate the unidirectional horizontal scans at 28,800 rpm), at a constant angular speed of facets thereof (pg. 1452 teaches that the PM scans at 28,800 rpm); optics configured to convey a resulting structured beam to a facet of the rotating polygonal mirror (At the output of the DMD, L3 and L4 (f L3 _ 300 mm and f L4 _ 150 mm) form a 4-f configuration and image the shaped beam onto the PM, i.e., the beam already bearing the two-dimensional pattern imparted by the DMD is relayed onto a facet of the polygonal mirror).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards system and method for high-speed imaging (Hahamovich pg. 5 teaches that imaging speed of the approach is mainly limited by the speed of the scanning apparatus and that faster scanning elements may enable imaging at higher rates. Cheng pg. 1451 teaches efforts and advancements directed to words system with high scanning speed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng to include a spatial light modulator and a rotating polygonal mirror connected for simultaneous and synchronous operation, the polygonal mirror scanning the input beam carrying the spatial patterns at a constant angular speed of facets thereof, and optics to convey a resulting structured beam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve a compact, low-cost and continuous scanning at a high speed (Cheng pg. 1451).
Hahamovich in view of Cheng does not specifically teach a parallelized processing unit that reconstructs an image of the object from the signal collected by the detector by parallelized processing using matrix multiplication (pg. 5 teaches using faster GPU units, which is a parallelized-processing unit, to improve the reconstruction rate of the images from the signals. Pg. 2 teaches a single-pixel detector. Pg. 6 teaches using matrix multiplication to reconstruct the image from the signal and patterns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view Cheng, further in view of Higham, to include a parallelized processing unit that reconstructs an image of the object from the signal collected by the detector by parallelized processing using matrix multiplication. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich further discloses that wherein the SLM is a digital micromirror device (DMD) (pg. 2 teaches that the most common spatial light modulators in the field of SPI are digital micromirror devices)
Regarding claim 19:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich further teaches that wherein the SLM is one of a reconfigurable display and a non-reconfigurable display mask (pg. 2 teaches that the most common spatial light modulators in the field of SPI are digital micromirror devices, which is a reconfigurable display).
Regarding claim 22:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich in view of Cheng does not teach that wherein the parallelized-processing unit comprises a graphics-processing unit (GPU).
However, Higham teaches that wherein the parallelized-processing unit comprises a graphics-processing unit (GPU) (Higham pg. 5 teaches using graphics processing unit, GPU, to reconstruct the images. The reconstructed images are shown in fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, to include that wherein the parallelized-processing unit comprises a graphics-processing unit (GPU). Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
Regarding claim 23:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich further teaches interpolation of non-sampled single-pixel detector signals from data arranged in a two-dimensional array (pg. 3 teaches that to fully optimize the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement, the entire signal during the pattern transition time T is used, rather than merely a single discrete sample” and dividing the signal during T into M discrete samples, each corresponding to a sub-pixel shift between the mask and imaged object. Thus, we obtain M sets of N samples. Pg. 3 fig. 2 teaches that for a mask with N basis functions, one obtains M datasets with N sample points each, which is detector signal data arranged in a two-dimensional array. Pg. 3 further teaches that the images are first aligned to each other via sub-pixel shifts and then summed to form a single image. Alignment of discretely sampled data by a shift smaller than the sampling interval requires estimating values at positions intermediate to the acquired samples, i.e., interpolation of signal values that were not sampled) according to information contained in corresponding spatial patterns displayed by the SLM (pg. 3 teaches that exploiting the cyclic property of the sampling matrix and the fast Fourier transform. Since the model matrix is well-conditioned, no regularization is used in the reconstruction procedure. The sampling matrix and model matrix being determined by the coded binary patterns of the mask taught at pg. 2).
Hahamovich in view of Cheng does not specifically teach that the processing unit is configured to perform compressed-sensing using matrix multiplication.
However, Higham teaches a paralleled processing unit configured to perform compressed sensing using matrix multiplication (pg. 1 teaches recovering “real-time 128x128 pixel video at 30 frames-per-second from a single-pixel camera sampling at a compression ratio of 2%, i.e, reconstruction from substantially fewer measurements than image pixels. Pg. 5 teaches faster GPU units, which is a parallelized-processing unit. Pg. 6 teaches using matrix multiplication to reconstruct the image from the signal and patterns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng such that the parallelized processing unit performs compressed sensing based upon interpolation of non-sampled single-pixel detector signals from data arranged in a two-dimensional array using matrix multiplication according to information contained in corresponding spatial patterns displayed by the SLM. Such modification would allow a faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (Higham pg. 5).
Regarding claim 24:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich does not teach that wherein the optics include a 4-f imaging system wherein the Fourier plane is located at a position of a facet of the rotating polygonal mirror.
Cheng teaches that the optics include a 4-f imaging system (pg. 1452 teaches that at the output of the DMD, L3 and L4 form a 4-f configuration and image the shaped beam onto the PM) wherein the Fourier plane is located at a position of a facet of the rotating polygonal mirror (pg. 1452 teaches that the DMD, PM, GM, and back focal plane of the objective lens are mutually conjugate. The back focal plane of an objective lens being the Fourier plane with respect to the sample plane, sucha that a facet of the polygonal mirror is located at a plane conjugate to, and therefore at a position of, the Fourier plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng to include a 4-f imaging system wherein the Fourier plane is located at a position of a facet of the rotating polygonal mirror. Such modification would maintain conjugacy between the modulator, the scanning element, and the objective pupil, thereby preventing beam walk-off at the objective aperture as the facet rotates (Cheng pg. 1452).
Regarding claim 25:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17, Hahamovich in view of Cheng does not teach that wherein the signal collected by the detector is digitized and transferred to the processing unit.
Higham teaches that wherein the signal collected by the detector is digitized and transferred to the processing unit (pg. 2 fig. 1 caption teaches that reflected light intensity is measured on single-pixel detector whereupon the signal is digitized by an analogue-to-digital converter for subsequent computer processing and image reconstruction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham to include that wherein the signal collected by the detector is digitized and transferred to the processing unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to yield images of equal quality throughout the scanning range (Higham pg. 1451).
26. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further in view of Hillman (US 10831014 B2).
Regarding claim 20:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham does not teach that wherein the rotating polygonal mirror and the SLM are connected in a double-scanning configuration.
However, Hillman further discloses that wherein the SLM (Column 2 lines 5-8 teaches that the scanning pattern may be generated by aiming a beam by means of spatial light modulator) and the rotating polygonal mirror are connected in a double scanning configuration (fig. 24F teaches a double scanning configuration in which the beam is reflected twice from the polygon mirror. Column 8 lines 46-49 teaches that the polygon mirror rotates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higman, further in view of Hillman to include that wherein the SLM and the polygonal mirror are connected in a double scanning configuration. Such modification would allow redirecting light such that the illumination and image beams remain in a relationship that permits the formation of a stationary image on one or more light detectors (as taught in Hillman column 3 lines 1-3). In addition, physical coupling of scan and de-scan mirror portions is offered by a polygonal mirror, thereby permitting precisely coupled scanning and de-scanning (as taught in Hillman column 37 lines 37-39).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further in view of Murase (US 4803367).
Regarding claim 26:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham does not specifically teach a delay-generator-triggered circuit that synchronizes each two-dimensional spatial pattern update with facet scanning events of the polygonal mirror.
Murase teaches a circuit (col 1 lines 63-68 teaches a clock signal generating circuit for receiving outputs of photodetectors) that is delay-generator-triggered (col 4 lines 50-55 teaches that the one-shot multivibrator 40 generates a pulse having a time width equal to the time required for the light beam 11 to advance from the main scanning start point to the recording start position. A one-shot multivibrator is triggered by an input transition and generates an output pulse of predetermined duration, and therefore corresponds to a delay generator) wherein the circuit synchronizes deployment of the modulation data for each scan with facet scanning events of the polygonal mirror (col 1 lines 60-63 teaches photodetectors for respectively detecting passage of said light beam over a main scanning start point and passage thereof over a main scanning end point. The detected passage of the light beam over the main scanning start point is an event occurring once per facet as the facet sweeps the beam. col 1 lines 63-68 teaches calculating the time required for the main scanning for each of mirror surfaces of said rotating polygon mirror. Col 6 lines 24-30 teaches a memory for storing digital information on a jitter amount of said light beam for each of said mirror surfaces of said rotating polygon mirror such that a time required for the main scanning of each of the mirror surfaces is stored and is used by the apparatus for said main scanning. The storage and use of a separate timing value per mirror surface establishes that the synchronization is for each facet), and the update of the data deployed by the modulator is synchronized to the events (Col 2 lines 48-56 teaches that the beam modulation timing of the light modulator 20 is precisely controlled based on a picture element clock signal S2 which is generated as described later and fed to the modulation circuit 19. Col 4 lines 64-68 teaches that the period of the picture element clock signal S2 is controlled to be proportional to the time required for the main scanning of the light beam 11. The picture element clock signal S2, derived from the photodetector outputs and from the per-mirror-surface timing, synchronizes the deployment of data to the modulator with the facet scanning events).
Hahamovich teaches the generation of two-dimensional spatial patterns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further to apply the timing circuit such that each facet scanning event imitates an update of the modulation update, as taught by Maruse. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for the deployed pattern to be modulated on every scan despite the jigger amounts inherent to the mirror surfaces of the rotation polygon mirror (Maruse col 4 lines 64-68).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments, "DLP7000 DLP® 0.7 XGA 2x LVDS Type A DMD," DLPS026G, Aug. 2012, rev. Apr. 2023. (Texas Instruments), further in view of Helser, George. "NEW! High Scan Rate, Polygon Laser Scanner for Biomedical Applications." Precision Laser Scanning, 9 June 2020, precisionlaserscanning.com/2020/06/new-high-scan-rate-polygon-laser-scanner-for-biomedical-applications/ (Helser). [Note: references were supplied in previous correspondence]
Regarding claim 27:
The modified invention above teaches the system of claim 17. Hahamovich does not specify that wherein the spatial-light modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display pixel-count greater than 10 x 10 pixels; and the rotating polygonal mirror has a facet count greater than 4, and a scan rate greater than 6 kHz.
Cheng teaches that wherein the spatial-light modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display pixel-count greater than 10 x 10 pixels (pg. 1452 teaches DMD (1140 pixels × 912 pixels, DLP4500-NIR, Texas Instruments, USA)); and the rotating polygonal mirror has a facet count greater than 4, and a scan rate greater than 6kHz (pg. 1452 teaches the PM (DT-72-290-025, Lincoln Laser, USA) is custom-built with 72 facets to generate the unidirectional horizontal scans (in-plane) at 28,800 rpm, which corresponds to 480 revolutions per second, and at 72 facets per revolution yields a facet scan rate of approximately 34.6 kHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng to include that wherein the spatial-light modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display pixel-count greater than 10 x 10 pixels; and the rotating polygonal mirror has a facet count greater than 4, and a scan rate greater than 6kHz. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to achieve binary pattern generation and a high scanning speed (Cheng pg. 1452).
Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham does not specify that the spatial-light modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display area greater than 5 mm x 5 mm.
However, Texas Instruments teaches that wherein the spatial-light modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display area greater than 5 mm x 5 mm (pg. 1 teaches that the digital micromirror device has a two-dimensional array of 1024 micromirror columns by 768 micromirror rows. Each mirror is approximately 13.68 microns in size, making the overall area of the display around 14mm by 10.5 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments, to include that that wherein the spatial-light modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display area greater than 5 mm x 5 mm. Such modification would enable high resolution and high performance spatial light modulation that is suitable for a variety of advanced display applications (as taught in Texas Instruments pg. 1 description section).
Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments does not specify that the rotating polygonal mirror a facet size greater than 2 mm x 2 mm.
However, Helser teaches that the polygonal mirror has a facet size larger than 2 mm x 2 mm (Helser teaches that the laser scanner with a 4.5mm facet clear aperture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hahamovich in view of Cheng, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments, further in view of Helser to include that the rotating polygonal mirror a facet size greater than 2 mm x 2 mm. Such modification would allow for a very compact integration of the polygon mirror and providing a high-speed scanner (as taught by Helser).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
