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. 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. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities . In line 1 of claim 1, “claim 8” should be replaced with “claim 1” in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error (claim 8 was previously canceled). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 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. In regard to claim 27 , the limitations, “ one or more flow controllers arranged to direct fluid flow in the microfluidic device; a thermal block coupled to the microfluidic device; a thermocycling device coupled to the microfluidic device; or a temperature controller for adjusting a temperature of the microfluidic device using the thermocycling device ” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, the claim appears to be written in the alternative, where one of the limitations being met is adequate for meeting the claim limitations. However, the last limitation of “ a temperature controller for adjusting a temperature of the microfluidic device using the thermocycling device ” appears to require the thermocycling device. Therefore, it is unclear if applicant requires one of the limitations, some of the limitations, or all of the limitations be met in order to meet the claim limitations. For examination purposes, it is presumed that one of the four limitations must be met in order to satisfy the claim limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1 , 3, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 3711785, hereinafter JP ‘785, of which an English translation is attached. In regard to claim 1 , JP ‘785 discloses a n optical projection system (see e.g. paragraph [001] of translation for projection device) for illuminating a planar surface (i.e. of 107 , see e.g. Figure 15) , the optical projection system comprising (see e.g. Figure 15) : a light source 101 (denoted “lamp”, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation) directed to emit light along an emission axis 1502 ( denoted “rotational symmetry axis, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation) , the emission axis 1502 oriented non-orthogonal to the planar surface (i.e. of 107 , see e.g. Figure 15 where the emission axis 1502 is angled with respect to the planar surface of element 107 ) ; a shaping rod (not labeled with element number, see e.g. annotated Figure 15 below where the shaping rod is indicated with an arrow) in optical communication with the light source 101 (see e.g. Figure 15 where the light from source 101 is incident on the shaping rod) , the shaping rod having a rod axis aligned parallel to the emission axis (see e.g. annotated Figure 15 below where the light source emission and shaping rod are parallel) ; and projection optics 105 (denoted “imaging element”, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation and Figure 15) , the projection optics 105 having a central axis 1501 (denoted “rotational symmetry axis of the imaging element”, see e.g. paragraph [0122] of translation and Figure 15) that is offset from the emission axis 1502 and an output axis 1502 (denoted rotational symmetry axis, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation and Figure 15) that is offset from the central axis 1501 (see e.g. Figure 15) . In regard to claim 3 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the light source 101 generates collimated light along the emission axis 1502 (see e.g. Figure 15 and paragraph [0047] where it is noted that parabolic reflector 102 causes the light to be a substantially parallel light beam, thus it is collimated ). In regard to claim 32 , JP ‘785 discloses a method for illuminating (i.e. via light source/lamp 101 , see e.g. Figure 15 and paragraph [0012]) a planar surface (i.e. of 107 , see e.g. Figure 15) , the method comprising: directing light from a light source 101 (denoted “lamp”, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation) along an emission axis 1502 ( denoted “rotational symmetry axis, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation) , the emission axis 1502 oriented non-orthogonal to the planar surface (i.e. of 107 , see e.g. Figure 15 where the emission axis 1502 is angled with respect to the planar surface of element 107 ) ; passing the light through a shaping rod (not labeled with element number, see e.g. annotated Figure 15 below where the shaping rod is indicated with an arrow) , the shaping rod having a rod axis aligned along the emission axis (see e.g. annotated Figure 15 below where the light source emission and shaping rod are parallel and coincident ) ; passing the light through projection optics 105 (denoted “imaging element”, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation and Figure 15) , the projection optics 105 having a central axis 1501 (denoted “rotational symmetry axis of the imaging element”, see e.g. paragraph [0122] of translation and Figure 15) that is offset from the emission axis 1502 and an output axis 1502 (denoted rotational symmetry axis, see e.g. paragraph [0112] of translation and Figure 15 and note it is the same/coincident with emission axis) that is offset from the central axis 1501 ( see e.g. Figure 15) ; and directing the light from projection optics 105 onto the planar surface (i.e. of 107 , see e.g. Figure 15) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of Song et al. (KR 10-2006-0033581, of which an English translation is attached) . In regard to claim 2 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the light source has a circularly symmetric intensity profile . However, Song et al. discloses the light source 700 (see e.g. page 6, 4 th paragraph and Figure 8) has a circularly symmetric intensity profile (see e.g. page 6, 6 th paragraph and Figure 8). Further , i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which the light source has a circularly symmetric intensity profile , since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Given the teachings of Song et al., i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP’ 785 with wherein the light source has a circularly symmetric intensity profile . A light source such as a light emitting diode or laser diode may emit such a circular profile. Such light sources have the advantage of small size and particular wavelength selection. Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of Burges (US 2012/0188786 A1). In regard to claim 6 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism having a curved cross-sectional shape. However, Burges discloses wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism having a curved cross-sectional shape (see e.g. paragraphs [0031] and [0040] where it is note d the rod may take a circular shape, which satisfies “curved cross-section shape”). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism having a curved cross-sectional shape , since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Given the teachings of Burges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism having a curved cross-sectional shape. Providing a circularly/curved cross-sectional shape rod in the light path allows for homogenizing of the beam due to reflection of the light as it traverses the road (see e.g. paragraph [0031] of Burges). In regard to claim 9 , JP ‘785 dis cl oses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism has having a polygonal cross-sectional shape or a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape. However, Burges discloses wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism has having a polygonal cross-sectional shape or a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (see e.g. paragraphs [0031] and [0040] where it is note d the rod may take a rectangular, square, hexagonal, or octagonal, which satisfy polygonal) . Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism has having a polygonal cross-sectional shape or a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Given the teachings of Burges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the shaping rod comprises a prism has having a polygonal cross-sectional shape or a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape. Providing a polygonal cross-sectional shape rod in the light path allows for homogenizing of the beam due to reflection of the light as it traverses the road (see e.g. paragraph [0031] of Burges). In regard to claim 10 , JP’ 785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and wherein the shaping rod (see e.g. annotated Figure 15 for shaping rod) is positioned for projecting light from the light source 101 (see e.g. Figure 15) onto the planar surface (i.e. of 107 in Figure 15). JP ‘785 fails to disclose the shaping rod has a rectangular shape or square shape. However, Burges discloses the shaping rod has a rectangular shape or square shape (see e.g. paragraphs [0031] and [0040] where it is note d the rod may take a rectangular or square shape in cross-section) . Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration wherein the shaping rod has a rectangular shape or square shape , since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Providing a square or rectangular cross-sectional shape rod in the light path allows for homogenizing of the beam due to reflection of the light as it traverses the road (see e.g. paragraph [0031] of Burges). In regard to claim 11 , JP ‘785, in view of Burges, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose wherein the light projected onto the rectangular shape or square shape has a y-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more and an x-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the light projected onto the rectangular shape or square shape has a y-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more and an x-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more , since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785, in view of Burges, with wherein the light projected onto the rectangular shape or square shape has a y-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more and an x-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more . Optimizing the uniformity of light by positioning the optical components would be considered within ordinary skill in the art as such an optimization would have predictable results. Claims 7 , 13, 2 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ). In regard to claim 7 , J P ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the shaping rod is positioned for projecting light from the light source onto an area of the planar surface with a Y-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more and an X-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more. However , one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the shaping rod is positioned for projecting light from the light source onto an area of the planar surface with a Y-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more and an X-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more , since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the shaping rod is positioned for projecting light from the light source onto an area of the planar surface with a Y-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more and an X-axis uniformity ratio of 50% or more. Optimizing the uniformity of light by positioning the optical components would be considered within ordinary skill in the art as such an optimization would have predictable results. In regard to claim 13 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the central axis of the projection optics is offset from the emission axis by a distance of from 1 mm to 20 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the central axis of the projection optics is offset from the emission axis by a distance of from 1 mm to 20 mm , since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the central axis of the projection optics is offset from the emission axis by a distance of from 1 mm to 20 mm . Adjusting the offset of the emission and central axes would provide a desired beam shape projected on the planar surface. In regard to claim 2 1 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein translation of the projection optics along the direction perpendicular to the central axis changes an offset between the central axis and the emission axis. However, one of ordinary skill would recognize that movement of the lens in a direction perpendicular to the central axis would result in the incident light hitting the lens surface in a different spot/different angle, which would effectively result in a change in the offset between the central and emission axes. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which wherein translation of the projection optics along the direction perpendicular to the central axis changes an offset between the central axis and the emission axis , since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein translation of the projection optics along the direction perpendicular to the central axis changes an offset between the central axis and the emission axis . Providing adjustability of the projection optics in a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the projection optics would allow for the beam shape, size and location to be selected. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of Hanano (US 2005/0046807 A1). In regard to claim 12 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the shaping rod is coupled to a mount allowing rotation of the shaping rod about the rod axis or the emission axis. However, Hanano discloses a shaping rod 12 that is rotatable around an axis (see e.g. paragraph [0126]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a mount to facilitate the rotation of the shaping rod. Given the teachings of Hanano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the shaping rod is coupled to a mount allowing rotation of the shaping rod about the rod axis or the emission axis. Providing a shaping rod that is rotatable would provide an optical device that is adjustable, allowing the user to tune the light as needed. Further, by providing a mount, the rotation may be easily performed. Claims 15 , 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of T suchiya et al. (US 2004/0246573 A1). In regard to claim 15 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the projection optics comprise a wedge prism positioned to shift input light oriented along or parallel to the central axis to output light oriented along the output axis. However, Tsuchiya et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1) : wherein the projection optics comprise a wedge prism 41 (denoted “wedge-shaped plate, see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [004 6 ]) positioned to shift input light oriented along or parallel to the central axis to output light oriented along the output axis (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0046]) . Given the teachings of Tsuchiya et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the projection optics comprise a wedge prism positioned to shift input light oriented along or parallel to the central axis to output light oriented along the output axis. Providing the wedge prism allows the light to be shifted off-axis in order to guide the light toward a different part of the sample/specimen being viewed. In regard to claim 16 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but and wherein the output axis 1502 is offset angularly from the central axis 1501 (see e.g. Figure 15). JP ‘785 fails to disclose wherein the wedge prism is positioned to align the output light over a center of the planar surface, or wherein the projection optics further comprise a first lens on an input side of the wedge prism and a second lens on an output side of the wedge prism. However, Tsuchiya et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that the second limitation is satisfied) wherein the wedge prism is positioned to align the output light over a center of the planar surface, or wherein the projection optics further comprise a first lens 12 on an input side of the wedge prism 13 and a second lens 14 on an output side of the wedge prism 13 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraphs [0046]-[0047]) . Given the teachings of Tsuchiya et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the wedge prism is positioned to align the output light over a center of the planar surface, or wherein the projection optics further comprise a first lens on an input side of the wedge prism and a second lens on an output side of the wedge prism. Providing the wedge prism allows the light to be shifted off-axis in order to guide the light toward a different part of the sample/specimen being viewed. In regard to claim 23 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose a microscope system in optical communication with the planar surface for collecting scattered or emitted light from the planar surface, wherein the microscope system has an optical axis oriented orthogonal to the planar surface. However, Tsuchiya et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1) : a microscope system (see e.g. paragraph [0041] for microscope system) in optical communication with the planar surface ( i.e. of specimen 3 ) for collecting scattered or emitted light from the planar surface ( i.e. of specimen 3 ) , wherein the microscope system has an optical axis oriented orthogonal to the planar surface (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that the optical axis of the optical path is perpendicular to the surface of specimen 3 ) . Given the teachings of Tsuchiya et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with a microscope system in optical communication with the planar surface for collecting scattered or emitted light from the planar surface, wherein the microscope system has an optical axis oriented orthogonal to the planar surface. Providing the optical light system to a microscope would allow for adequate lighting for a specimen under examination. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of Norris (US 4,227,782). In regard to claim 20 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the projection optics are coupled to a mount allowing rotation of the projection optics about the central axis or allowing translation of the projection optics along a direction perpendicular to the central axis. However, Norris discloses a projection apparatus in which the optics are mounted and rotatably movable (see e.g. Column 3, lines 10-19). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which wherein the projection optics are coupled to a mount allowing rotation of the projection optics about the central axis or allowing translation of the projection optics along a direction perpendicular to the central axis, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)). Given the teachings of Norris, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of J” ‘785 with wherein the projection optics are coupled to a mount allowing rotation of the projection optics about the central axis or allowing translation of the projection optics along a direction perpendicular to the central axis. Providing a mounted and rotatably movable section of optics would allow for precise movement of the projected light beam. Claims 25 -27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of Unger (US 2006/0006067 A1). In regard to claim 25 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the planar surface comprises, retains, or is configured to retain a microarray or microfluidic device. However, Unger discloses (see e.g. Figure 1) : wherein the planar surface (i.e. of 207, see e.g. paragraph [0119] and Figures 1a-c) comprises, retains, or is configured to retain a microarray or microfluidic device 205 (see e.g. paragraph [0018] where it is noted that 207 is carrier for microfluidic device 205 ). Given the teachings of Unger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the planar surface comprises, retains, or is configured to retain a microarray or microfluidic device. Using the projection system with a microscope and microfluidic device would allow for the analysis of chemical and biochemical systems with more limited human operator involvement (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Unger). In regard to claim 26 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25 above, but fails to disclose wherein the planar surface comprises, retains, or is configured to retain the microfluidic device, and wherein the microfluidic device comprises a microfluidic array or a plurality of reaction sites distributed across the planar surface . However, Unger discloses wherein the planar surface (i.e. of 207, see e.g. paragraph [0119] and Figures 1a-c) comprises, retains, or is configured to retain the microfluidic device 205 (see e.g. paragraph [0018] where it is noted that 207 is carrier for microfluidic device 205 ) , and wherein the microfluidic device 205 comprises a microfluidic array 206 or a plurality of reaction sites distributed across the planar surface (see e.g. paragraph [0119] for sample arrays). Given the teachings of Unger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with wherein the planar surface comprises, retains, or is configured to retain the microfluidic device, and wherein the microfluidic device comprises a microfluidic array or a plurality of reaction sites distributed across the planar surface . Using the projection system with a microscope and microfluidic device would allow for the analysis of chemical and biochemical systems with more limited human operator involvement (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Unger). In regard to claim 27 , JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 26 above, but fails to disclose one or more flow controllers arranged to direct fluid flow in the microfluidic device; a thermal block coupled to the microfluidic device; a thermocycling device coupled to the microfluidic device; or a temperature controller for adjusting a temperature of the microfluidic device using the thermocycling device. However, Unger discloses one or more flow controllers arranged to direct fluid flow in the microfluidic device; a thermal block coupled to the microfluidic device; a thermocycling device coupled to the microfluidic device; or a temperature controller 240 for adjusting a temperature of the microfluidic device 205 using the thermocycling device (see e.g. paragraph [0096] for PCR thermocycler) . Given the teachings of Unger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with one or more flow controllers arranged to direct fluid flow in the microfluidic device; a thermal block coupled to the microfluidic device; a thermocycling device coupled to the microfluidic device; or a temperature controller for adjusting a temperature of the microfluidic device using the thermocycling device. Using the projection system with a microscope and microfluidic device would allow for the analysis of chemical and biochemical systems with more limited human operator involvement (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Unger). Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘785, (JP 3711785 ) in view of Twietmeyer et al. (WO 2021/247930). In regard to claim 31 ¸ JP ‘785 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose a translation or rotation stage supporting at least the shaping rod and projection optics for adjusting a relative position or orientation between the planar surface and the shaping rod and projection optics. However, Twietmeyer et al. discloses using a translation stage for supporting an optical projection system (see e.g. page 21, first paragraph). Given the teachings of Twietmeyer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of JP ‘785 with a translation or rotation stage supporting at least the shaping rod and projection optics for adjusting a relative position or orientation between the planar surface and the shaping rod and projection optics. Providing a stage allows the optics to be adjusted which allows the user to obtain the desired, size, shape and location of the beam projected by the optics. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3207 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Carruth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9791 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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. /JESSICA M MERLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871