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Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 13-17, 19, and 26-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 June 2026.
Claims 1-17, 19, and 26-27 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 4, 12 are original; claims 2, 5-6, 8, 13-17, 19, and 26-27 are withdrawn; claims 3, 7, 9-11 have been previously presented; and claims 18, 20-25, and 28 have been canceled by the applicant.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 9-10 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.
Re: claim 9, the meaning of the limitation “two or more axes” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the two or more axes recited in claim 1 or whether axes other than those recited in claim 1 are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the same two or more axes recited in claim 1.
Re: claim 10, the meaning of the limitation “the first reflecting moveable element and/or a or the second reflecting moveable element” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether an additional component was intended to be recited after “and/or a or.” For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “the first reflecting moveable element and/or the second reflecting moveable element.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (US 20130107338).
Re: claim 1, Richter discloses a first actuating device 1 (Figs. 1-2) comprising a first reflecting moveable surface 1 (para. 58 discloses MEMS mirror) arranged to tilt about two or more axes (para. 58 discloses biaxial deflection “a laser beam…impinges on the first MEMS scanning mirror 1 which is deflected electively…biaxially”; see also para. 34, which states “both scanning mirrors are deflected biaxially”) so as to deflect the laser beam to define a projection area about a projection centre (capability best shown in Fig. 2, where element 5 is the intermediate image and where the laser beams 3 continue past element 5, reflect off of mirror 7 and are then directed to the second MEMS device 2, which outputs the final image in the projection area about a projection center); a second actuating device 2 (Figs. 1, 2) arranged to direct the laser beam 3 so as to determine a location of the projection centre in the zone (capability to so direct disclosed in Fig. 2 & paras. 59-61 and Fig. 6 & para. 65).
While Richter does not explicitly state that the first actuating device moves faster than the second actuating device, a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been able to infer that the first actuating device moves faster than the second. Paragraphs 64-66 collectively disclose that the first MEMS mirror 1 can position a laser spot within the scan field that can generate Lissajous patterns. Paragraphs 64-66 further disclose that the second MEMS mirror 2 transfers the Lissajous patterns to a larger scan field comprised of a plurality of the smaller scan fields. In other words, mirror 1 creates the Lissajou curve paths and mirror 2 changes the location of the projection center. Since mirror 2 needs only to change the projection center over a comparatively smaller range while mirror 1 does the precision scanning over a wider range, mirror 1 would need to be moving faster than mirror 2. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first mirror move faster than the second mirror for the purpose of optimizing the size of the projected images while creating a comparatively wider field of view range.
Re: claim 3, Richter discloses the limitations of 3 and Richter further discloses that . the second actuating device 2 comprises a second reflecting moveable surface (para. 58 discloses biaxial moveable mirror).
Re: claim 4, Richter discloses the limitations of claim 3, and Richter further discloses that the second reflecting moveable surface 2 is mirrored (para. 58 discloses mirror).
Re: claim 9, Richter discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Richter further discloses that the second actuating device 2 is arranged to tilt about two or more axes (para. 58 discloses biaxial) and have a greater range of motion, about at least one of said axes, than the first actuating device (greater range disclosed in at least Fig. 6 & para. 65, where first mirror 1 has high precision in a small range and second mirror has a wider range for the scanning field).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Changhui (CN 102981269), cited by applicant in IDS dated 17 May 2024 (citations below made to English language machine translation, attached).
Re: claim 10, Richter discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Richter does not explicitly disclose that the first reflecting moveable element and/or a or the second reflecting moveable element is a deformable moveable element which can change shape on actuation.
Changhui discloses that the first reflecting moveable element 2 and/or a or the second reflecting moveable element is a deformable moveable element which can change shape on actuation (Fig. 2, where element 2 is a deformable mirror; see also para. 23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first reflecting moveable element and/or a or the second reflecting moveable element be a deformable moveable element which can change shape on actuation, as disclosed by Changhui, applied to the device disclosed by Richter for the purpose of obtaining a fast response time and minimizing the footprint of the component.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Boni (US 20210188622).
Re: claim 11, Richter discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Richter does not explicitly disclose that the second actuating device comprises: at least one actuator arm comprising a piezoelectric membrane and having a width at least ten times its thickness; and a moveable element, connected to the actuator arm, such that actuation of the actuator arm causes movement of the moveable element.
Boni discloses that the second actuating device 60 (Fig. 4) comprises at least one actuator arm (four arms 72A-72D disclosed in Fig. 4) comprising a piezoelectric membrane (Fig. 4; para. 65) and having a width at least ten times its thickness; and a moveable element 62, connected to the actuator arm, such that actuation of the actuator arm causes movement of the moveable element (connection & movement disclosed in Fig. 4 & para. 65). While Boni does not explicitly disclose that the arms have a width ten times its thickness, Boni does disclose the general conditions of the claim. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. [MPEP 2144.05.II.A]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arms have a width at least ten times its thickness, as disclosed by Boni, applied to the device disclosed by Richter for the purpose of the device being able to bend in a given direction more easily while distributing torsional stress.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one actuator arm comprise a piezoelectric membrane and having a width at least ten times its thickness; and a moveable element, connected to the actuator arm, such that actuation of the actuator arm causes movement of the moveable element, as disclosed by Boni, applied to the device disclosed by Richter for the purpose of reducing the overall power needed by the device because the application of a constant voltage is not required.
Re: claim 12, Richter and Boni discloses the limitations of claim 11, and Boni further discloses that the second actuating device 60 comprises a second reflecting moveable surface (Fig. 4, surface of element 62) and the moveable element comprises the second reflecting moveable surface ( reflecting surface disclosed in para. 62).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights