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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Embodiment 3, Figure 2D, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the embodiments are not mutually exclusive and that there is no serious burden to search all the disclosed species. Applicants’ traversal is moot the selected election seemingly covers all of the pending product claims. Additionally, Applicants arguments are not found persuasive because as outlined in the Election/Restriction requirement dated 01/07/2026, the various species disclose mutually exclusive features, i.e. Embodiment 1 figure 2B discloses that the magnets 224a/224b are located on the inner carrier while embodiment 2 figure 2C discloses that coils 226a/226b are located on the inner carrier. As stated by the Applicant in regards to figures 3A and 3C, constructing an element out of multiple sheets is mutually exclusive from a single sheet, unless applicant is suggesting that they are obvious variants. Additionally, examination of the various mutually exclusive features disclosed in the Embodiments require further search and consideration of the additional features. Applicant is reminded that upon allowance of a generic independent claim, all claims depending from that allowable generic claim will be rejoined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2024, 08/13/2025 and 02/03/206 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a beam-generating assembly configured to generate a set of light beams” (Claim 1) and “a set of detector groups positioned to receive light from the set of light beams that is returned from the sample” (Claim 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the set of light beams”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhuler et al. US 5,914,801].
Claim 9, Dhuler et al. discloses an electromagnetic actuator arrangement comprising: a planar nested carrier comprising: a stationary base [50]; a first set of suspension elements [56]; an intermediate carrier [52] moveably connected to the stationary base via the first set of suspension elements [56; col. 5 lines 48-60]; a second set of suspension elements [58; col. 5 lines 48-60]; and an inner carrier [54] moveably connected to the intermediate carrier [52] via the second set of suspension elements; an optical component [107] carried by the inner carrier [54]; a first set of actuators [60] mounted to the intermediate carrier and controllable to move the intermediate carrier relative to the stationary base along a first planar direction [first axis; col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 8]; and a second set of actuators [62] mounted to the inner carrier and controllable to move the inner carrier relative to the intermediate carrier along a second planar direction [second axis; col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 8].
Claim 10, Dhuler et al. discloses the electromagnetic actuator arrangement of claim 9, wherein: the intermediate carrier [54] is controllable to move relative to the stationary base [50] only in the first planar direction [col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 8]; and the inner carrier [54] is controllable to move relative to the stationary base [50] only in the second planar direction [col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 8].
Claim 14, Dhuler et al. discloses the electromagnetic actuator arrangement of claim 9, wherein: the planar nested carrier is monolithic [all the components etched from the substrate; col. 7 lines 46-65].
Claim 15, Dhuler et al. discloses the electromagnetic actuator arrangement of claim 9, wherein: the first set of suspension elements [56] comprises a first group of suspension elements [56 lower; located on the lower inner surface of 50] and a second group of suspension elements [56 upper; located on the upper inner surface of 50]; the first group [56 lower] of the first set of suspension elements connects a first side of the stationary base to a first side of the intermediate carrier facing the first side of the stationary base [figure 5A]; and the second group [56 upper] of the first set of suspension elements connects a second side of the stationary base to a second side of the intermediate carrier facing the second side of the stationary base [figure 5A].
Claim 16, Dhuler et al. discloses the electromagnetic actuator arrangement of claim 9, wherein: the second set of suspension elements [58] comprises a first group of suspension elements [58 left; located on the left inner surface of 52] and a second group of suspension elements [58 right; located on the right inner surface of 52]; the first group of the second set of suspension elements connects a third side of the intermediate carrier to a first side of the inner carrier facing the third side of the intermediate carrier [figure 5A]; and the second group of the second set of suspension elements connects a fourth side of the intermediate carrier to a second side of the inner carrier facing the fourth side of the intermediate carrier [figure 5A].
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 1-3, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhuler et al. US 5,914,801] in view of Mack et al. [US 2021/0165236].
Claim 1, Dhuler et al. discloses an optical system [figures 5-6] comprising: an electromagnetic actuator arrangement comprising: a nested carrier comprising: a stationary base [50]; a first set of suspension elements [56]; an intermediate carrier [52] moveably connected to the stationary base via the first set of suspension elements [56; col. 5 lines 48-60]; a second set of suspension elements [58]; and an inner carrier [54] moveably connected to the intermediate carrier via the second set of suspension elements [col. 5 lines 48-60]; an optical component [107] carried by the inner carrier [54]; a first set of actuators [60] mounted to the intermediate carrier and controllable to move the intermediate carrier relative to the stationary base along a first direction [first axis; col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 8]; and a second set of actuators [62] mounted to the inner carrier and controllable to move the inner carrier relative to the intermediate carrier along a second direction [second axis; col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 8].
Dhuler et al. fails to teach that the optical component is a diffuser.
Mack et al. teaches that the optical component can be various components such as a prism, a beam splitter, a lens, a mirror, a diffuser, a diffractive grating or optical fiber [paragraph 0095, claims 6 and 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the mirror of Dhuler et al. for another optical component such as a diffuser as taught by Mack et al. in order to change how the light beam is reflected by the optical component.
Claim 2, Dhuler et al. as modified discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein Dhuler et al. further discloses comprising: a beam-generating assembly [202; figure 6] configured to generate a set of light beams [204], wherein: the diffuser [107] is positioned to receive a first light [204] beam of the set of light beams [figure 6; col. 7 lines 34-45].
Claim 3, Dhuler et al. as modified discloses the optical system of claim 2, wherein: the first light beam [204] has a cross-sectional shape at the diffuser [a light be inherently has a cross sectional shape], but fails to teach that the cross-sectional shape having a length that is longer than a width thereof; and the length is aligned with the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select either the diffuser and/or light beam so that the cross-sectional shape of the first light beam has a length that is longer than a width thereof; and the length is aligned with the second direction depending on the application of the device and the detectors used to detect the reflected beam, since applicant has not disclosed that the relation the claimed cross-sectional shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the arrangement as taught by Dhuler et al.
Claim 7, Dhuler et al. as modified discloses the optical system of claim 1 wherein Dhuler et al. further discloses comprising: a set of detector groups positioned to receive light from the set of light beams that is returned from the sample. [the detectors are not shown but inherent in order to scan the apter of reflected beam 206; col. 7 lines 39-43]
Claim 8, Dhuler et al. as modified discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein Dhuler et al. further discloses that: the planar nested carrier is monolithic [all the components etched from the substrate; col. 7 lines 46-65].
Claim 11, Dhuler et al. discloses the electromagnetic arrangement of claim 9, wherein: the optical component [107] is a mirror [col. 7 lines 33-34] but fails to teach that
the optical component is a diffuser.
Mack et al. teaches that the optical component can be various components such as a prism, a beam splitter, a lens, a mirror, a diffuser, a diffractive grating or optical fiber [paragraph 0095, claims 6 and 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the mirror of Dhuler et al. for another optical component such as a diffuser as taught by Mack et al. in order to change how the light beam is reflected by the optical component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights