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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed May 13, 2026. Claims 1-11, 21-29 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stern et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0308639).
Regarding claim 1, Stern et al. disclose (Figs. 13B) an apparatus comprising: a first monolithic structure (base, substrate 30) that includes a first plurality of components (132, 110, 100, 131 ) preinstalled and aligned in the first monolithic structure, at least one of the first plurality of components comprising a bidirectional beam steering device (132); and a second monolithic structure (134) that includes a second plurality of components (133, 135) preinstalled and aligned in the second monolithic structure, wherein: the first monolithic structure has a first connecting portion (top periphery portion); the second monolithic structure has a second connecting portion (bottom, stepped periphery portion); the first monolithic structure and the second monolithic structure are each constructed to be aligned and adjoined to each other at an interface (contact portion between the two structures) of the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion; and the first plurality of components are preinstalled and optically aligned in the first monolithic structure such that when the first monolithic structure and the second monolithic structures are adjoined to each other at said interface, the second plurality of components are aligned with the first plurality of components. Since the claimed structure is disclosed by Stern et al., it is an orthogonal laser metrology module and is “for orthogonal laser metrology.”
Regarding clams 5, 6, 9, the first monolithic structure incudes first and second support members (e.g. left and right sides). Stern et al. disclose at least one of the components being a beam steering device (132), a mirror (135) or a coherent energy source (100).
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(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern et al. in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0168952).
Regarding claims 2, 4, Stern et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Stern et al. further disclose the connecting portion includes a stepped portion. Stern et al. do not disclose a bevel portion. Chen et al. teach (Figs. 5A, 5B) a connecting portion may be stepped or bevel having a planar surface formed at an angle as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a bevel portion in the apparatus of Stern et al. in view of Chen et al. to obtain a desired effect as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 11, 21 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.
Claims 3, 10, 22-29 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant asserts that Stern et al. do not disclose monolithic structures. Examiner disagrees. Applicant fails to provide any rationale why the referenced elements of the prior art are not monolithic structures.
Second, Applicant asserts that Stern et al. do not disclose “monolithic optical structures having preinstalled and pre-aligned optical components in the sense claimed” because Stern et al. relies on assembly tolerances, adhesive bonding, and post-placement alignment. Examiner disagrees as Applicant has failed to explain how assembly tolerances, adhesive bonding and post-placement alignment is dispositive on the issues of preinstallation and alignment.
Applicant also asserts that Stern et al. do not disclose “two independently aligned monolithic subassemblies that self-align upon mating.” Examiner disagrees as no such claim language is found in the claims.
Similarly, Applicant’s other assertions are not supported by the claim language and are not persuasive. Since Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive this rejection is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights