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 .
Drawings
2. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Paragraphs [0024]-[0026], [0047], describe certain features of the drawings using color (e.g., the blue dashed-line boxes, light blue shading highlighting, green dotted-line boxes, four beam paths highlighting the scanning action shown by the colors orange, blue, red, and green). However, the submitted drawings are in black and white. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note that Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-16 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 Hillman (US 10831014 B2), 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 (Higham)
6. Regarding claim 1:
Hahamovich discloses a system for single-pixel imaging of an object (pg. 3 fig. 1 teaches the system configuration for single-pixel imaging), comprising: a light source (pg. teaches using light-emitting diodes as a light source); a modulator (pg. 2 teaches using a photomask, which corresponds to a modulator); a projector (pg. 2 teaches that the resulting spatial light pattern at the output of the mask was projected onto the imaged sample using objective and tube lenses. The objective and tube lenses correspond to the projector); and a detector (pg. 2 teaches using a single-pixel detector); wherein: said modulator generates structured patterns from an input beam generated by said light source (pg. 2 teaches a photomask that generate light pattern from an illumination beam); and said detector collects signals from the object (pg. 3 fig. 1 teaches a photodetector detect the signal from the imaged objected)
Hahamovich fails to disclose a polygonal mirror, wherein: said polygonal mirror scans the structured patterns; said projector projects de-scanned structured patterns to the object.
However, Hillman discloses a polygonal mirror (fig. 42(a)-(c) teaches a polygon mirror), wherein: said polygonal mirror scans the structured patterns (Column 2 lines 5-8 teaches that the scanning pattern may be generated by aiming a beam by means of spatial light modulator. Column 2 lines 61-67, column 3 lines 1-3 teach that a scanning/descanning assembly, which is the polygon mirror in this case, redirects 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); said projector projects de-scanned structured patterns to the object (fig. 34 teaches a projector, here as a composition of lenses, that projects the de-scanned patterns to the sample volume).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging (Hahamovich pg. 2 teaches using single-pixel imaging to enable imaging in fields in which both the source and detection technologies are limited. Hillman columns 1-2 teaches using modulator along with scanning and descanning elements to construct a stationary image for the construction of volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging). 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 Hillman to include a polygonal mirror, wherein: said polygonal mirror scans the structured patterns; said projector projects de-scanned structured patterns to the object. 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).
Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose that a parallelized-processing unit is selected for reconstruction of images of the object from the signals collected by said detector.
However, Higham discloses a parallelized-processing unit is selected for reconstruction of images of the object from the signals collected by said detector (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).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging (Higham pg. 1 teaches using deep convolutional auto-encoder to improve computation efficiency to speed up the process of image reconstruction during single-pixel imaging). 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include a parallelized-processing unit is selected for reconstruction of images of the object from the signals collected by said detector. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
7. Regarding claim 2:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hillman further discloses that wherein the modulator (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 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).
8. Regarding claim 5:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose wherein the parallelized processing unit is selected for reconstruction of images by interpolation of scalar data distributed on a two-dimensional rectangular grid by matrix-matrix multiplication as determined by a sequence of the structured patterns generated by the modulator.
However, Higham discloses that wherein the parallelized processing unit is selected for reconstruction of images (pg. 5 teaches using faster GPU units, which is a parallelized-processing unit, to improve the reconstruction rate of the images from the signals) by interpolation of scalar data distributed on a two-dimensional rectangular grid by matrix-matrix multiplication as determined by a sequence of the structured patterns generated by the modulator (pg. 6 teaches using matrix multiplication to reconstruct the image from the signal and patterns).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include that disclose wherein the parallelized processing unit is selected for reconstruction of images by interpolation of scalar data distributed on a two-dimensional rectangular grid by matrix-matrix multiplication as determined by a sequence of the structured patterns generated by the modulator. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
9. Regarding claim 6:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hahamovich further discloses that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device (pg. 2 teaches that the most common spatial light modulators in the field of SPI are digital micromirror devices).
10. Regarding claim 8:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hahamovich further discloses that wherein the modulator is a reconfigurable display (pg. 2 teaches that the most common spatial light modulators in the field of SPI are digital micromirror devices, which is a reconfigurable display).
11. Regarding claim 9:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hahamovich further discloses that wherein the modulator is a non-reconfigurable physical mask (pg. 2 teaches illuminating a photomask, which is a non-reconfigurable physical mask, coded with a predetermined binary pattern to spatially modulate the light).
12. Regarding claim 10:
Hahamovich discloses a method for single-pixel imaging of an object (pg. 1 introduction section teaches single pixel imaging based on laser scanning microscopy), comprising generating encoding patterns by illuminating a modulator with an input beam (pg. 2 configurable spatial light modulators (SLMs) are used to code the illumination with a set of spatial patterns); detecting signals from the object (pg. 2 teaches that detection is performed with a single detector. The signal from the detector is recorded for each pattern projected
on the object).
Hahamovich fails to disclose imparting a scanned motion to the encoding patterns by a polygonal mirror, projecting de-scanned encoding patterns to the object.
However, Hillman discloses imparting a scanned motion to the encoding patterns by a polygonal mirror (Column 2 lines 5-8 teaches that the scanning pattern may be generated by aiming a beam by means of spatial light modulator. Column 2 lines 61-67, column 3 lines 1-3 teach that a scanning/descanning assembly, which is the polygon mirror in this case, redirects 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), projecting de-scanned encoding patterns to the object (fig. 34 teaches a projector, here as a composition of lenses, that projects the de-scanned patterns to the sample volume).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman to include imparting a scanned motion to the encoding patterns by a polygonal mirror, projecting de-scanned encoding patterns to the object. 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).
Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose reconstructing images of the object from the signals detected from the object by parallelized-processing.
However, Higham discloses reconstructing images of the object from the signals detected from the object by parallelized-processing (Higham pg. 5 teaches using GPU, which performs parallelized-processing, to reconstruct the images).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include reconstructing images of the object from the signals detected from the object by parallelized-processing. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
13. Regarding claim 12:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the method of claim 10. Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose that said parallelized-processing is selected for images acquisition by interpolation of scalar data distributed on a two-dimensional rectangular grid by matrix-matrix multiplication as determined by a sequence of the encoding patterns generated by the modulator.
However, Higham further discloses that said parallelized-processing (Higham pg. 5 teaches using GPU, which performs parallelized-processing, to reconstruct the images) is selected for images acquisition by interpolation of scalar data distributed on a two-dimensional rectangular grid by matrix-matrix multiplication as determined by a sequence of the encoding patterns generated by the modulator (pg. 6 teaches using matrix multiplication to reconstruct the image from the signal and patterns. Pg. 2 teaches that the patterns are generated with a spatial light modulator).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include that said parallelized-processing is selected for images acquisition by interpolation of scalar data distributed on a two-dimensional rectangular grid by matrix-matrix multiplication as determined by a sequence of the encoding patterns generated by the modulator. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
14. Regarding claim 13:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the method of claim 10. Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose selecting a graphics processing unit for reconstruction and display of images acquired by said parallelized-processing.
However, Higham discloses selecting a graphics processing unit for reconstruction and display of images acquired by said parallelized-processing (Higham pg. 5 teaches using graphics processing unit, GPU, to reconstruct the images. The reconstructed images are shown in fig. 6).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include selecting a graphics processing unit for reconstruction and display of images acquired by said parallelized-processing. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
15. Regarding claim 14:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the method of claim 10. Hahamovich further discloses displaying obtained reconstructed images of the object (Hahamovich pg. 4 fig. 3 teaches displaying the reconstructed images).
16. Regarding claim 15:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the method of claim 10. Hahamovich further discloses recording obtained reconstructed images of the object (Hahamovich pg. 5 teaches that the captured images in Fig. 3(a)-(d) was measured independently to confirm results reproducibility. Each one of the captured signals yielded the same result image. To compare the result images, one inherently needs to record them).
17. Regarding claim 16:
Hahamovich discloses a method for single-pixel imaging of an object (pg. 1 introduction teaches single pixel imaging based on laser scanning microscopy), comprising generating encoding patterns using a spatial light modulator (pg. 2 configurable spatial light modulators (SLMs) are used to code the illumination with a set of spatial patterns), detecting signals from the object under projection (pg. 2 teaches that detection is performed with a single detector. The signal from the detector is recorded for each pattern projected
on the object).
Hahamovich fails to disclose scanning the spatial light modulator and the encoding patterns by a polygonal mirror, projecting de-scanned encoded patterns to the object.
However, Hillman discloses scanning the spatial light modulator and the encoding patterns by a polygonal mirror (Column 2 lines 5-8 teaches that the scanning pattern may be generated by aiming a beam by means of spatial light modulator. Column 2 lines 61-67, column 3 lines 1-3 teach that a scanning/descanning assembly, which is the polygon mirror in this case, redirects 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), projecting de-scanned encoded patterns to the object (fig. 34 teaches a projector, here as a composition of lenses, that projects the de-scanned patterns to the sample volume).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman to include scanning the spatial light modulator and the encoding patterns by a polygonal mirror, projecting de-scanned encoded patterns to the object. 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).
Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose reconstructing images of the object from detected signals by parallelized-processing selected for images acquisition by a domain-specific matrix multiplication-based interpolation as determined by a sequence of the encoding patterns generated by the spatial light modulator.
However, Higham discloses reconstructing images of the object from detected signals by parallelized-processing (Higham pg. 5 teaches using GPU, which performs parallelized-processing, to reconstruct the images) selected for images acquisition by a domain-specific matrix multiplication-based interpolation as determined by a sequence of the encoding patterns generated by the spatial light modulator (pg. 6 teaches using matrix multiplication to reconstruct the image from the signal and patterns. Pg. 2 teaches that the patterns are generated with a spatial light modulator).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include reconstructing images of the object from detected signals by parallelized-processing selected for images acquisition by a domain-specific matrix multiplication-based interpolation as determined by a sequence of the encoding patterns generated by the spatial light modulator. Such modification would allow faster reconstruction rate of the images from the signals (as taught in Higham pg. 5).
18. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, further 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) (Cheng)
19. Regarding claim 3:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham fails to disclose that wherein the modulator and the polygonal mirror are connected in a single scanning configuration.
However, Cheng discloses that wherein the modulator and the polygonal mirror are connected in a single scanning configuration (fig. 1 teaches that the incident hits the digital micromirror device and hits the polygon mirror once).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging (Cheng pg. 1451 teaches implementing high scanning rate to generate images of equal quality). 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Cheng, to include that wherein the modulator and the polygonal mirror are connected in a single scanning configuration. Such modification would allow a compact configuration at a high scanning speed (as taught in Cheng pg. 1).
20. Claims 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Penning, Jan-Erik. "Advanced Scanning Solutions For Micromachining." The Laser User, no. 82, 2016, pp. 30-32. (Penning)
21. Regarding claim 4:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham fails to disclose that wherein a scanned motion imparted by individual facets of the polygonal mirror is synchronized with updating of the structured patterns, thus generating structured patterns with each scan.
However, Penning discloses that wherein a scanned motion imparted by individual facets of the polygonal mirror is synchronized with updating of the structured patterns, thus generating structured patterns with each scan (pg. 31 teaches that the polygon facet location is synchronized with the firing of the laser on a pulse by pulse basis. Pg. 32 that the patterns can be generated with a liquid crystal spatial light modulator).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate high-speed scanning (Penning pg. 30 introduces the use of polygon mirror as a stable scanner for high-speed scanning). 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Penning, to include that wherein a scanned motion imparted by individual facets of the polygonal mirror is synchronized with updating of the structured patterns, thus generating structured patterns with each scan. Such modification would allow high accuracy and repeatability over scanning areas (as taught in Penning pg. 30).
22. Regarding claim 11:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the method of claim 10. Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, fails to disclose synchronizing the scanned motion by updating of the encoding patterns generated by the modulator, thereby generating encoding patterns with each scan.
However, Penning discloses synchronizing the scanned motion by updating of the encoding patterns generated by the modulator, thereby generating encoding patterns with each scan (pg. 32 teaches using a spatial light modulator to create dynamic, parallel beam shaping and a synchronization feature on pg. 30 to align laser firing with the polygon facet).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate high-speed scanning. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Penning, to include synchronizing the scanned motion by updating of the encoding patterns generated by the modulator, thereby generating encoding patterns with each scan. Such modification would allow dynamically changing the light pattern for beam shaping applications (as taught in Penning pg. 32) and high accuracy and repeatability over scanning areas (as taught in Penning pg. 30).
23. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hillman, 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)
24. Regarding claim 7:
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham, discloses the system of claim 1. Hillman further discloses that the polygonal mirror has a facet count larger than 4 (Hillman fig. 34 shows that the polygon mirror has a facet count larger than 4).
Hahamovich in view of Hillman fails to disclose that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display refresh rate larger than 6kHz.
However, Higham discloses that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display refresh rate larger than 6kHz (Higham pg. 3 teaches that the modulation rate of the digital micromirror device can reach 22.7 kHz).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, to include that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display refresh rate larger than 6kHz. Such modification would allow sequentially scanning through a series of binary patterns with high speed (as taught in Higham pg. 2).
Hahamovich in view of Hillman, further in view of Higham fails to disclose that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display area larger than 5 mm x 5 mm, a display pixel-count larger than 10 x 10 pixels.
However, Texas Instruments discloses that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display area larger 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), a display pixel-count larger than 10 x 10 pixels (pg. 1 teaches 1024 by 768 pixel resolution of the field of visual display).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging (Texas Instruments pg. 1 application section teaches that the digital micromirror device has applications in a variety of imaging system). 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments, to include that that wherein the modulator is a digital micromirror device of a display area larger than 5 mm x 5 mm, a display pixel-count larger than 10 x 10 pixels. 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments, fails to disclose that the polygonal mirror has a facet size larger than 2 mm x 2 mm, and a scan rate larger than 6 kHz.
However, Helser discloses 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), and a scan rate larger than 6 kHz (Helser teaches that the polygon mirror can provide a scan rate up to 12 kHz).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards improving the system and method for accurate imaging (Helser teaches that the polygon scanner is suitable for many imaging systems requiring a high-speed scanner). 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 Hillman, further in view of Higham, further in view of Texas Instruments, further in view of Helser to include that the polygonal mirror has a facet size larger than 2 mm x 2 mm, and a scan rate larger than 6 kHz. 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