DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 6-7 and 11-13 be found allowable, claims 14 and 16-19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-8, 11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigel et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0356757 in view of Blanding et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0110570.
Regarding claims 6-7 Weigel discloses a de-speckle mechanism (e.g. figure 1 diffuser disk 8), comprising: an optical homogenizer (e.g. 8), wherein the optical homogenizer is provided with a light-receiving surface (e.g. right side of 8); and the optical homogenizer is configured to move while keeping the light-receiving surface facing a same direction (inter alia paragraph [0039] “diffuser disk 8, which can be laterally shifted perpendicularly to an optical axis 9”).
Weigel is silent regarding the movable mount aspects of the de-speckle mechanism. Specifically Weigel does not disclose: a carrier, an outer frame disposed outside the carrier; a first flexible component, wherein the first flexible component is a main component substantially connecting the carrier and the outer frame; and a first actuator comprising a first part and a second part acting relative to each other, wherein the first part is disposed on the carrier, the first actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer by the first part and the second part acting relative to each other, with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum, as further required by claim 6; or wherein the first flexible component is a plate spring, as required by claim 7.
Blanding teaches an optical mount (title e.g. see figures 2A-2B) that translates an optical element within a translation plane that is orthogonal to an optical axis (inter alia abstract); including a carrier (e.g. inner member 22); an outer frame disposed outside the carrier (e.g. outer member 24); a first flexible component (e.g. flexure 26 or tangential flexure 32) is a main component substantially connecting connected to the carrier and the outer frame (e.g. see figures 2A-2B); and a first actuator (e.g. actuator 34) comprising a first part (e.g. figure 4 ball-and-socket joint 48b) and a second part (e.g. ball-and-socket joint 48a) acting relative to each other (e.g. see figure 4), wherein the first part (e.g. 48b) is disposed on the carrier (e.g. 22), the first actuator (e.g. 34) is configured to drive the optical element by the first part and the second part acting relative to each other (axiomatic see figures 2a-2B & 4 and inter alia abstract), with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum (e.g. see figures 2A-2B); and wherein the first flexible component is a plate spring (e.g. 26 or 32) for the purpose of using an optical mount that provides controllable translational motion with reduced friction (inter alia paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the de-speckle mechanism as disclosed by Weigel to have a carrier, an outer frame disposed outside the carrier; a first flexible component, wherein the first flexible component is a main component substantially connecting the carrier and the outer frame; and a first actuator comprising a first part and a second part acting relative to each other, wherein the first part is disposed on the carrier, the first actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer by the first part and the second part acting relative to each other, with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum, wherein the first flexible component is a plate spring as taught by Blanding for the purpose of using an optical mount that provides controllable translational motion with reduced friction.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Weigel as modified by Blanding discloses the de-speckle mechanism according to claim 6, as set forth above. Weigel further discloses wherein the optical homogenizer (e.g. 8) is a diffuser (e.g. diffuser disk 8).
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Weigel and Blanding disclose the de-speckle mechanism according to claim 6, as set forth above. Weigel and Blanding do not disclose or teach it is further comprising a base, a second flexible component, and a second actuator, wherein one end of the second flexible component is connected to the base, the other end of the second flexible component is connected to the outer frame, the second actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer, with a connecting position between the second flexible component and the base as a fulcrum, so that the optical homogenizer is configured to swing in a plane direction substantially parallel to or identical to the light-receiving surface of the optical homogenizer. However, this would be duplicating the elements in claim 6. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the actuated oscillating pivot mechanism elements since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977); and further it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04. In the current case one would be motivated to duplicate the oscillation motion to further homogenize laser light, thereby lowering the speckle effect. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the de-speckle mechanism as disclosed by the combination of Weigel and Blanding to have it further comprises a base, a second flexible component, and a second actuator, wherein one end of the second flexible component is connected to the base, the other end of the second flexible component is connected to the outer frame, the second actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer, with a connecting position between the second flexible component and the base as a fulcrum, so that the optical homogenizer is configured to swing in a plane direction substantially parallel to or identical to the light-receiving surface of the optical homogenizer for the purpose of further homogenizing laser light, thereby lowering the speckle effect and since duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art and no new or unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claims 14-16 Weigel discloses a de-speckle mechanism (e.g. figure 1 diffuser disk 8), comprising: an optical homogenizer (e.g. 8), wherein the optical homogenizer is provided with a light-receiving surface (e.g. right side of 8); and the optical homogenizer is configured to move while keeping the light-receiving surface facing a same direction (inter alia paragraph [0039] “diffuser disk 8, which can be laterally shifted perpendicularly to an optical axis 9”).
Weigel is silent regarding the mount aspects of the de-speckle mechanism. Specifically Weigel does not disclose: a carrier; an outer frame disposed outside the carrier; a first flexible component connected to the carrier and the outer frame; and a first actuator connected to the carrier or the outer frame, wherein the first actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer, with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum, as further required by claim 14; or wherein the first actuator is selected from a group consisting of a piezoelectric element, a stepper motor, a servo motor, and a voice coil motor, as required by claim 15; or wherein the first flexible component is a plate spring, as required by claim 16.
Blanding teaches an optical mount (title e.g. see figures 2A-2B) that translates an optical element within a translation plane that is orthogonal to an optical axis (inter alia abstract); including a carrier (e.g. inner member 22); an outer frame disposed outside the carrier (e.g. outer member 24); a first flexible component (e.g. flexure 26 or tangential flexure 32) connected to the carrier and the outer frame (e.g. see figures 2A-2B); and a first actuator (e.g. first translational adjustment apparatus 30a including actuator 34) connected to the carrier or the outer frame (e.g. see figures 2A-2B), wherein the first actuator is configured to drive the optical element (inter alia abstract e.g. see figures 2A-2B), with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum (e.g. see figures 2A-2B); and wherein the first actuator (e.g. 30a including 34) is selected from a group consisting of a piezoelectric element, a stepper motor, a servo motor, and a voice coil motor (paragraph [0034] “actuator 34 … may be some other type of linear actuator, such as a magnetically- or motor-driven or piezoelectrically driven actuator”); or wherein the first flexible component is a plate spring (e.g. 26 or 32) for the purpose of using an optical mount that provides controllable translational motion with reduced friction (inter alia paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the de-speckle mechanism as disclosed by Weigel to have a carrier; an outer frame disposed outside the carrier; a first flexible component connected to the carrier and the outer frame; and a first actuator connected to the carrier or the outer frame, wherein the first actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer, with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum, wherein the first actuator is selected from a group consisting of a piezoelectric element, a stepper motor, a servo motor, and a voice coil motor, wherein the first flexible component is a plate spring as taught by Blanding for the purpose of using an optical mount that provides controllable translational motion with reduced friction.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the limitations of claims 17 and 20 are the same as the limitations of claims 11 and 15 and claims 17 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-10, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigel et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0356757 in view of Blanding et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0110570 in further view of Cheng et al. US Patent Application Publication 2008/0192464, with evidence of certain features evidenced by Wikipedia webpage “Moving magnet actuator” as of 2020.
Regarding claims 9-10 the combination of Weigel and Blanding disclose the de-speckle mechanism according to claim 6, as set forth above. Weigel is silent regarding the movable mount aspects of the de-speckle mechanism. Blanding further teaches (inter alia paragraph [0034]) driving mechanism to move an optical element may be an adjustment screw or may be some other type of linear actuator, such as a magnetically- or motor-driven or piezoelectrically driven actuator. Blanding is also silent regarding the details of a magnetically-driven actuator.
Weigel and Blanding do not disclose or teach wherein the first part and the second part of the first actuator are of a magnet and a coil that are correspondingly interchangeable, as recited in claim 9; or wherein the first part and the second part of the first actuator are of a magnetic conducting element and an electromagnet that are correspondingly interchangeable, as recited in claim 10.
Cheng teaches a similar de-speckle mechanism (see figures 4A-5) including a diffuser (e.g. speckle eliminator 226) on a carrier (e.g. light blocking element 222) that is moved by an actuator (e.g. actuator 224) that is orthogonal to an optical axis (see figure 4A); and further discloses the actuator may be a voice coil (paragraph [0033]) for the purpose of moving the element at a high frequency for image refresh modulation (paragraph [0033]). For clarity it is noted a voice coil includes a magnet/magnetic conducting element and a coil/electromagnet that can be interchangeable placed on the carrier and the outer frame, as evidenced by Wikipedia. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the de-speckle mechanism as disclosed by the combination of Weigel and Blanding to have the first part and the second part of the first actuator are of a magnet and a coil that are correspondingly interchangeable; or wherein the first part and the second part of the first actuator are of a magnetic conducting element and an electromagnet that are correspondingly interchangeable as taught by Cheng for the purpose of moving the element at a high frequency for image refresh modulation.
Regarding claims 12-13, the limitations repeat the limitations of claims 9-10, respectively for the duplicate elements of claim 11. The limitations of claims 12-13 are rejected using the same reasons as claims 9-10 for the duplicate mechanism, since duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art and no new or unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claims 18-19, the limitations of claims 18-19 are the same as the limitations of claims 12-13 and claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 1 (and therefore its dependents 2-5) none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed de-speckle mechanism specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, a carrier; an optical homogenizer provided with a light-receiving surface and disposed on the carrier; an outer frame disposed adjacent to the carrier; a first flexible component, wherein the first flexible component is an only component connecting the carrier and the outer frame; and a first actuator comprising a first part and a second part acting relative to each other, wherein the first part is disposed on the carrier, the first actuator is configured to drive the optical homogenizer, with a connecting position between the first flexible component and the outer frame as a fulcrum, so that the optical homogenizer is configured to swing in a plane direction substantially parallel to or identical to the light-receiving surface of the optical homogenizer.
For example, the optical mount disclosed by Blanding, while it moves the optical element transversely (in the x-y plane) to the optical axis (z-axis), it has more than one connection points between the carrier and the outer frame and at least fails to have the first flexible component being the only component connecting the carrier and the outer frame, as required by claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Umeki et al. US Patent 4,175,832; in regards to an optical mount (see figures 2-3) with a single flexible connection (rod-shaped supporting member 15) between a carrier (support 13) and an outer frame (casing 16) and moves the optical element in an x-y plane (title) in response to a magnetic actuator (abstract - drive coils 19-22 & magnet 17). However, it at least fails to have the motion of the optical element substantially parallel to or identical to the surface of the optical element, as required by independent claim 1.
Lacey US Patent 4,710,001; in regards to an optical mount (see figure 1) that moves the optical element (e.g. mirror 104) in response to a magnetic actuator (e.g. voice coil 105) with a single point of contact (see figure 1). However, since the motion orthogonal to the surface of the optical element it at least fails to have the motion of the optical element substantially parallel to or identical to the surface of the optical element, as required by independent claim 1.
Kasazumi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2008/0198334; in regards to de-speckle arrangements (see figures 2-3) that move a diffuser (e.g. 14 or 34). However, it at least fails to have the motion of the diffuser substantially parallel to or identical to the surface of the diffuser, as required by independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 November 14, 2025