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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the deleted claim limitation must be shown with cross-outs.
MPEP 714 states: (c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vaan (US 20080192205 A1) in view of Dubinovsky (US 20020149852 A1) and Coppeta (US 2010/0253769 A1) and as evidenced by “Reference Guide: How to Combine Lasers” (2012 NPL).
Regarding claim 1, De Vaan teaches a method comprising:
Operating one or more light sources configured to emit one or more beams of light; (light source 6, P0032, Fig. 2)
operating optics comprising an optical device (condenser lens 8) ,
a spatial polarization valve (reflective LCD panel 22 [0037]; figure 2), and a polarizer (polarizer 17 [0032]; figure 2) such that:
the optical device reshapes and blends multiple beams of light, including the one or more beams of light from the one or more light sources to provide a first beam of light (polarization dependent diffuser 16 [0032]; figure 2);
De Vaan teaches the spatial polarization valve applies a spatial polarization pattern on the first beam of light to provide a second beam of light ([0035], figure 2, discloses light is reflected by the reflective polarizer 17 with pass the diffuser 16 a second time without being diffused, and re-enter the light guiding means 9 and inside the light guiding means, the light is recycled such that at least a portion of the light re-appears at the diffuser 16 having said first direction of polarization” );
De Vaan does not explicitly disclose the polarizer splits polarization states of the second beam of light to reflect a third beam of light and operating an optical assembly to: reshape the third beam of light into a fourth beam of light; introduce the fourth beam of light, in direction along a direction of the one or more beams of light emitted by the one or more light sources, as one of the multiple beams of light. However, analogous optical system art, Coppeta, depicts the polarizer splits polarization states of the second beam of light (306) to reflect a third beam of light (310) and operating an optical assembly (312) to: reshape the third beam of light (314) into a fourth beam of light; introduce the fourth beam of light, in direction along a direction of the one or more beams of light emitted by the one or more light sources (see figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated operating an optical assembly to: reshape the third beam of light into a fourth beam of light; introduce the fourth beam of light, in direction along a direction of the one or more beams of light emitted by the one or more light sources for the benefit of providing a bright image with a long operation lifetime [0012].
De Vaan does not explicitly disclose utilizing a multiplex the multiple beams of light to result in a fifth beam of light that is transmitted through and not reflected by the polarizer. However, analogous art, Dubinovsky, teaches recycled light is combined into path 103 (figure 10 [0048]. It is conventionally known in the art that beams may be combined by the broad concept of multiplexing such as knifed edging as evidenced by (npl: “Reference Guide: How to Combine Lasers” 2012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a multiplex since it is well known in the art. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, De Vaan further teaches wherein the spatial polarization valve comprises a liquid crystal display device (reflective LCD panel 22, [0037], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of De Vaan and Dubinovsky does not explicitly disclose teaches wherein the spatial polarization valve is configured to rotate the polarization state of one or more pixels. Analogous art, Coppeta, further teaches wherein the spatial polarization valve is configured to rotate the polarization state of one or more pixels (“first SLM 260 which rotates the polarization of each pixel depending on the desired brightness of the pixel”, [0132]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have incorporated the spatial polarization valve is configured to rotate the polarization state of one or more pixels as taught by Coppeta into the combination taught by De Vaan based on design needs of the required brightness of pixels.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vaan (US 20080192205 A1) in view of Dubinovsky (US 20020149852 A1) and Coppeta (US 2010/0253769 A1) and as evidenced by “Reference Guide: How to Combine Lasers” (2012 NPL) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houbertz-Krauss (US 20130056910 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of De Vaan, Coppeta, and Dubinovsky as applied to claim 1 does not teach the light source being a solid state laser, only mentioning a generic light source. In the same field of endeavor, optics, Houbertz-Krauss teaches wherein the one or more light sources comprise at least a solid state laser. (“Solid-state lasers, diode-pumped solid-state lasers, semiconductor lasers, fiber lasers, etc. with any wavelength can generally be used as a radiation source.”, [0052]). As the combination teaches a generic light source, and optical assemblies that would work with lasers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the apparatus according to claim 1 with a solid state laser as the light source would lead to the predictable result of the laser acting as any light source would. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a solid state laser in order to make the optics apparatus suitable as an energy source in higher energy applications such as the 3d printing apparatus which Houbertz-Krauss teaches. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of De Vaan, Coppeta, and Dubinovsky as applied to claim 1 does not teach the light source being a semiconductor laser. In the same field of endeavor, optics, Houbertz-Krauss teaches wherein the one or more light sources comprise at least a semiconductor laser. (“Solid-state lasers, diode-pumped solid-state lasers, semiconductor lasers, fiber lasers, etc. with any wavelength can generally be used as a radiation source.”, [0052]). As the combination teaches a generic light source, optical assemblies that would work with lasers is also included. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the apparatus according to claim 1 with a solid state laser as the light source would lead to the predictable result of the laser acting as any light source would. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a solid state laser in order to make the optics apparatus suitable as an energy source in higher energy applications such as the 3d printing apparatus which Houbertz-Krauss teaches "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vaan (US 20080192205 A1) in view of Dubinovsky (US 20020149852 A1) and Coppeta (US 2010/0253769 A1) and as evidenced by “Reference Guide: How to Combine Lasers” (2012 NPL) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amitai (US 20100202048 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of De Vaan, Coppeta, and Dubinovsky fail to teach an optically addressed light valve. In the same field of endeavor, optics, Amitai teaches
wherein the spatial polarization valve comprises an optically addressed light valve (“the display can be obtained directly from either a spatial light modulator ( SLM), such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode array (OLED), a scanning source or similar devices”, [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining the apparatus according to claim 1 with an optically addressed light valve would lead to the predictable result optically addressed light valve working as a spatial polarization valve. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vaan (US 20080192205 A1) in view of Dubinovsky (US 20020149852 A1) and Coppeta (US 2010/0253769 A1) and as evidenced by “Reference Guide: How to Combine Lasers” (2012 NPL), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of NPL Polarization (Waves).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of De Vaan, Coppeta, and Dubinovsky as applied to claim 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the polarizer is configured to reflect an s-polarization state of the second beam light as the third beam of light. However, NPL Polarization (waves) discloses there are only two shapes for light: p and s polarization (under polarization state). MPEP 2144.04 states obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Given there are only two options for the shape of light, it would be obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vaan (US 20080192205 A1) in view of Dubinovsky (US 20020149852 A1) and Coppeta (US 2010/0253769 A1) and as evidenced by “Reference Guide: How to Combine Lasers” (2012 NPL) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US2002/0141697 A1).
De Vaan does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical device is further operated to multiplex the multiple beams of light to provide the first beam of light. However, analogous art, Yoon discloses er. The light entered the multiple reflecting device is multiplex-reflected upon the first interface and second interface depending upon a wavelength of the light (abstract). Further, Dubinovsky, discloses how common it is to use multiplex [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a multiplex since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue that the prior arts doesn't teach multiple beams of light. Examiner disagrees. The De Vaan teaches the light enters a diffuser which divides the beam into multiple beams. Further, as written the claim language states "operating one or more light sources to emit one or more beams of lights." Furthermore, the other prior arts, Dubinovsky and Coppeta teach multiple lights (see figure 3 of Coppeta and Dubinovsky [0048]). It is In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, as written, the claim language does not preclude that Dubinovsky rejected energy introduced as one of the source multiple beams has to be the blended, reshaped, and polarized to generate the final transmitted beam or Coppeta’s split off beam has to be the only source beam.
Additionally, MPEP 714 states: (c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Appropriate correction is required.
The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments but proper marking are required next time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights