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
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 31 August 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claim 14-18) in the reply filed on 31 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “the imaging system includes a memory device storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the imaging system to: move the first mirror galvanometer and the second mirror galvanometer” in Claim 17 and “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the imaging system to move the first mirror galvanometer and the second mirror galvanometer” in Claim 18.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 14-18 are 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.
With respect to Claims 14, and 17-18, the recitation “a mirror tilt angle of the first mirror galvanometer…by the mirror tilt angle of the second mirror galvanometer…corresponding to the mirror tilt angle” is unclear, for there is insufficient antecedent basis for the mirror tilt angle of the second mirror galvanometer and the subsequently recited mirror tilt angle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the scope, for it is unclear if there is only one or multiple mirror tilt angles being recited in the claim(s). Although Claim 17 recites “the mirror tilt angle is a first mirror tilt angle,” the scope is still unclear since there is a lack of antecedent basis of the limitations recited in Claim 1. Claims 17 and 18 recite “second mirror tilt angle,” but it is unclear if this element is the same or different from the originally recited mirror tilt angle of the second mirror galvanometer in Claim 1. Examiner interprets “a/the mirror tilt angle” as “any mirror tilt angle” for the prosecution on merits.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an imaging system.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MaGuire et al. US 3801180 A (herein after "MaGuire").
With respect to Claim 14, MaGuire discloses an imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45) for rotating a beam of light (figs. 1-2), the imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45) comprising:
a first mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 16; col. 2, lines 40-45) positioned to reflect (galvanometer 16 having input terminals 17 arranged to rotate mirror 12; col. 2, lines 40-45) an input image beam (input beam of light from source L; col. 2, lines 35-40) at a plurality of first indexed reflection angles (multiple indexed reflection angles as seen in fig. 1; e.g., reflection angle of line image 2 reflected from mirror 12; fig. 1) determined by a mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 12 about axle 15 mounted for rotation about Y axis; col. 2, lines 40-45) of the first mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 16; col. 2, lines 40-45) as a first reflected image beam (e.g., beam 1 is reflected onto mirror 21 as line image 2 parallel to Y axis; col. 2, lines 60-65);
a plurality of static mirrors (fixed spherical mirrors 11, 21 and 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) positioned to reflect the first reflected image beam (e.g., beam 1 is reflected onto mirror 21 as line image 2 parallel to Y axis; col. 2, lines 60-65), as a second reflected image beam (e.g., beam 1 is then reflected from mirror 21 onto mirror 22 to form line image directed along X axis; col. 2, lines 60-68), at different reflection angles (reflecting plurality of line images produced from input beam via multiple reflecting mirror arrangement, line images illustrating different reflection angles as seen in fig. 1; col. 3, lines 30-40) corresponding to the plurality of first indexed reflection angles (multiple indexed reflection angles as seen in fig. 1; e.g., reflection angle of line image 2 reflected from mirror 12; fig. 1); and
a second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55) positioned to reflect (galvanometer 26 with input terminals 27 to rotate mirror 22; col. 2, lines 45-55) the second reflected image beam (e.g., beam 1 is then reflected from mirror 21 onto mirror 22 to form line image directed along X axis; col. 2, lines 60-68) at a plurality of second indexed reflection angles (multiple indexed reflection angles as seen in fig. 1; e.g., reflection angle of line image 5 reflected from mirror 22; fig. 1) determined by the mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 22 about axle 15; col. 2, lines 45-55) of the second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55), the second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55) forming a rotated image beam (beam is then focused and appears as output beam of light therefrom; col. 3, lines 10-15; figs. 1-2) having a rotation angle (positioning and direction of output beam controlled by deflection of input beam via rotations of mirrors 12 and 22; col. 3, lines 25-35; figs. 1-2), relative to the input image beam (input beam of light from source L; col. 2, lines 35-40), corresponding to the mirror tilt angle (via anti-clockwise rotation of mirror 12 and clockwise rotation of mirror 22; col. 3, lines 25-35; rotatable mirrors 12 and 22 rotate about one Y axis; col. 3, lines 55-60).
With respect to Claim 15, MaGuire discloses the imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45) of claim 14,
wherein,
the plurality of static mirrors (fixed spherical mirrors 11, 21 and 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) are positioned (as seen in fig. 1) between the first mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 16; col. 2, lines 40-45) and the second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55) along an x-axis (considered axis Y in fig. 1; col. 2, lines 25-35); and
the plurality of static mirrors (fixed spherical mirrors 11, 21 and 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) are positioned spaced a distance apart (as seen in fig. 1) from the first mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 16; col. 2, lines 40-45) and the second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55) along a z-axis (Z axis; fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 16, MaGuire discloses the imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45) of claim 14,
wherein,
the plurality of static mirrors (fixed spherical mirrors 11, 21 and 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) include:
a first static mirror (fixed spherical mirror 21; col. 2, lines 25-30) positioned at a mirror galvanometer plane (plane comprising galvanometers 16, 26 and mirrors 12, 22 along Y axis; as seen in fig. 1);
a second static mirror (fixed spherical mirror 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) positioned above the mirror galvanometer plane (plane comprising galvanometers 16, 26 and mirrors 12, 22 along Y axis; as seen in fig. 1); and
a third static mirror (fixed spherical mirror 11; col. 2, lines 25-30) is positioned below the mirror galvanometer plane (plane comprising galvanometers 16, 26 and mirrors 12, 22 along Y axis; as seen in fig. 1).
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) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MaGuire et al. US 3801180 A (herein after "MaGuire") in view of Zhao US 20190302597 A1.
With respect to Claim 17, MaGuire discloses the imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45) of claim 14,
wherein,
the mirror tilt angle is a first mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 12 about axle 15 mounted for rotation about Y axis; col. 2, lines 40-45); and
move (galvanometer 16 having input terminals 17 arranged to rotate mirror 12; col. 2, lines 40-45, galvanometer 26 with input terminals 27 to rotate mirror 22; col. 2, lines 45-55) the first mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 16; col. 2, lines 40-45) and the second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55) from the first mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 12 about axle 15 mounted for rotation about Y axis; col. 2, lines 40-45) to a second mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 22 about axle 15; col. 2, lines 45-55) such that the first reflected image beam (e.g., beam 1 is reflected onto mirror 21 as line image 2 parallel to Y axis; col. 2, lines 60-65) is shifted (figs. 1-2) from reflecting off a first static mirror (fixed spherical mirror 21; col. 2, lines 25-30) of the plurality of static mirrors (fixed spherical mirrors 11, 21 and 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) to a reflecting off a second static mirror (fixed spherical mirror 31; col. 2, lines 25-30) of the plurality of static mirrors (fixed spherical mirrors 11, 21 and 31; col. 2, lines 25-30).
MaGuire does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the imaging system includes a memory device storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the imaging system to [perform specified operations].
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches a method and apparatus for controlling a projector ([0005]) that comprises a controller including one or more processors, a light source, a reflector, and a memory for storing one or more programs ([0016]). Zhao further discloses that the one or more programs enable, when executed by the controller, the controller to implement a method for controlling a projector ([0006], [0016]). The method for controlling a projector includes adjusting a tilt angle of the reflector to change the tilt angle of the reflector, and to enable a light beam incident onto the reflector to be reflected to a target position ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of MaGuire to include the technical feature of an imaging system including a memory device storing instructions to be executed by a processor, for the purpose of achieving scanning a to-be-projected area at an adjustable scanning power, as taught by Zhao ([0018]).
Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 18, MaGuire in view of Zhao teaches the imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45; MaGuire) of claim 17, wherein the instructions ([0006], [0016-18]; Zhao), when executed by the processor ([0006], [0016-18]; Zhao), cause the imaging system (apparatus for deflecting an input beam of light; col. 1, lines 40-45; MaGuire) to move (galvanometer 16 having input terminals 17 arranged to rotate mirror 12; col. 2, lines 40-45, galvanometer 26 with input terminals 27 to rotate mirror 22; col. 2, lines 45-55) the first mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 16; col. 2, lines 40-45; MaGuire) and the second mirror galvanometer (galvanometer 26; col. 2, lines 45-55; MaGuire) from the first mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 12 about axle 15 mounted for rotation about Y axis; col. 2, lines 40-45) to the second mirror tilt angle (rotate mirror 22 about axle 15; col. 2, lines 45-55).
MaGuire does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): an angle transition period in a range of between 1 and 50 milliseconds.
However, Zhao further teaches that it takes less than 1/60 seconds, 1/120 seconds, or the like to complete scanning the to-be-projected area and an image sensor/camera can acquire a complete structured light pattern formed by light spots of each position ([0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of MaGuire to include the technical features of an imaging system including a memory device storing instructions to be executed by a processor and complete scanning being within 1/120-1/60 seconds, for the purpose of achieving scanning a to-be-projected area at an adjustable scanning power, providing an adjustable tilt angle of a reflector, and generating depth information of the to-be-projected area, as taught by Zhao ([0018], [0052], [0060]).
Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Aslanov et al. US 20180157006 A1 discloses a laser processing apparatus substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Apel et al. US 20150138372 A1 discloses a device and method for measuring a camera substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10 September 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights