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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 9/9/2026. Claims 17 and 20 are cancelled, claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-16, 18-19, 21-22 are pending.
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 1-5, 7, 10-12, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,466,352 ("Shahar")
Regarding claim 1, Shahar discloses a system comprising:
at least three optical devices (1208, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1216, and 1218, Figs. 12a-d, and see 1016, 1018, Fig. 10) disposed at a first plane (plane where focusing lenses are located, see for example,1016,1018, Fig. 10) and at different azimuthal positions (Figs. 12a-d, 10, the lenses are arranged at different azimuthal positions) around an axis of the system (1204, Fig. 12a-d, and see 1046, Fig. 10, col. 16, line 31), configured to receive scattered radiation from targets (1250, 1260, 1270, Figs. 12a-d, and 1036, Fig. 10) on a common substrate (1238, Figs. 12a-d, and 1038, Fig. 10, col. 20, lines 15-16), and configured to simultaneously span over the common substrate (1238, Figs. 12a-d, and 1038, Fig. 10);
reflective devices (reflecting prisms 1220, 1222,1224, 1226, 1228, and 1230, Figs. 12a-d, and 1012, 1014, Fig. 10) disposed at least at locations at a second plane (plane where 1012, 1014, Fig. 10 are located, not shown in Figs. 12a-d) and around the axis (1204, Figs. 12a-d, 1046, Fig. 10), each of the reflective devices (reflecting prisms 1220, 1222,1224, 1226, 1228, and 1230, Figs. 12a-d, and 1012, 1014, Fig. 10) is configured to receive the scattered radiation from a corresponding one of the optical devices (1208, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1216, and 1218, Figs. 12a-d, and 1016, 1018, Fig. 10);
a movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d, and 1008, Fig. 10) disposed along the axis (1204, Figs. 12a-d, 1046, Fig. 10) and configured to move with respect to the locations of the reflective devices in the second plane (col. 17, lines 57-59) to receive the scattered radiation from any of the reflective devices (reflecting prisms 1220, 1222,1224, 1226, 1228, and 1230, Figs. 12a-d, and 1012, 1014, Fig. 10, col. 16, lines 52-61, see also col. 20, lines 10-14); and
a detector (1056, Fig. 10, not shown in Figs. 12a-d) configured to receive the scattered radiation from the movable reflective device (1202, Figs. 12a-d, 1008, Fig. 10, see col. 16, lines 49-61 and col. 20, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 2, Shahar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the optical devices (1208, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1216, and 1218, Figs. 12a-d) are disposed in an array arrangement that is symmetric about the axis (1204, Figs. 12a-d).
Regarding claim 3, Shahar discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the array arrangement is annular (see Figs. 12a-d, annular array) or polygonal.
Regarding claim 4, Shahar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein first and second ones of the optical devices (any of 1208, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1216, and 1218, Figs. 12a-d) are disposed at equal optical distances (see Figs. 12a-d, optical devices arranged symmetrically and at equal optical distances on plate 1206) relative to the movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d).
Regarding claim 5, Shahar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d) is further configured to direct a beam of radiation (1244, Figs. 12a-d) toward the targets (1250, 1260, 1270, Figs. 12a-d) to produce the scattered radiation from the targets (col. 16, lines 49-61, and col. 20, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, Shahar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein:
a first optical path is defined by first ones of the targets (1036, Fig. 10, and see 1250, Fig. 12a-d), optical devices (1016, Fig. 10, and 1214, Figs. 12a-d), and reflective devices (1012, Fig. 10, and 1226, Figs. 12a-d);
a second optical path is defined by second ones of the targets (1260, Figs. 12b-d), optical devices (1216, Figs. 12a-d), and reflective devices (1228, Figs. 12a-d); and
the movable reflective device (1008, Fig. 10 and 1202, Figs. 12a-d) is further configured to:
direct a beam (1032, Fig. 10, and 1244, 1248, 1252, 1254, Figs. 12a-d) toward the targets (1036, Fig. 10, and see 1250, 1260, Figs. 12a-d) via the reflective devices (1012, Fig. 10, and 1226,1228, Figs. 12a-d); and
actuate to shift (see 1202 shifting positions in Figs. 12a-d) the beam (1244, Figs. 12a-d) between the first and second optical paths (see first and second limitations, and Figs. 12a-d).
Regarding claim 10, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein:
a measurement sequence comprises performing the aligning of the second ones of the targets (1260, Figs. 12a-d) and optical devices (1228, Figs. 12a-d) being after the aligning of the first ones of the targets (1250, Figs. 12a-d) and optical devices (1226, Figs. 12a-d, second position is after polygon 1202 is rotated, see col. 18, liens 29-30);
the system is further configured to complete the measurement sequence faster than an alternative measurement sequence that comprises aligning a single optical device to the first one of the targets and then to the second one of the targets (Shahar discloses the same structure and setup, therefore it similarly completes the measurement sequence faster than using a single optical device, see also col. 20, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 11, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the movable reflective device (1008, Fig. 10 and 1202, Figs. 12a-d) comprises a rotatable reflector (col. 16, lines 15-16, and col. 17, line 54, col. 18, lines 10-11) configured to rotate to engage the first or second optical paths (col. 18. line 30, rotated 30 degrees to engage second path).
Regarding claim 12, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the movable reflective device (1008, Fig. 10 and 1202, Figs. 12a-d) comprises a multi-faceted reflector (polygon, see Fig. 10) configured to translate and/or rotate to engage the first or second optical paths (col. 17, lines 63-65, and col. 18. line 30, rotated 30 degrees to engage second path).
Regarding claim 15, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein, based on a state of the movable reflective device (1008, Fig. 10 and 1202, Figs. 12a-d), the system is further configured to propagate the scattered radiation along the first optical or the second optical path (see Figs. 12a-d).
Regarding claim 16, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein lengths of the first and second optical paths are approximately same (see Figs. 10, 12a-d).
Regarding claim 18, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, further comprising a radiation source (1020, Fig. 10, and 1232, 1234, 1236, Figs. 12a-d) configured to generate the beam (1022, Fig. 10, and 1244, 1252, Figs. 12a-d) to direct toward the movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d, and 1008, Fig. 10) along the axis (1204, Figs. 12a-d, 1046, Fig. 10), wherein the movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d, and 1008, Fig. 10) is further configured to direct the beam from the axis (1204, Figs. 12a-d, 1046, Fig. 10) to the first optical path or from the axis to the second optical path (see first and second paths in claim 7 above, disclosed by Shahar in Figs. 12a-d).
Regarding claim 19, Shahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d, and 1008, Fig. 10) is further configured to direct the scattered radiation toward the detector (1056, Fig. 10, not shown in Figs. 12a-d) using the first optical path or using the second optical path (see Figs. 12a-d, col. 16, lines 49-61 and col. 20, lines 10-11).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahar in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0054454 ("Almogy").
Regarding claim 6, Shahar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the optical devices are configured to collect the scattered radiation for detection (col. 16, lines 49-61 and col. 20, lines 10-11).
Shahar does not disclose that the optical devices are objectives.
However, Almogy discloses objective lenses (paragraph [0326]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use objective lenses as disclosed by Almogy in the device of Shahar in order to focus the beam into a small spot for better spatial resolution and collect the scattered light through the same objective.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahar in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0342886 ("Cooper").
Regarding claim 13, Sahar discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the movable reflective device (rotating polygon 1202, Figs. 12a-d, and 1008, Fig. 10) is configured to rotate to engage the first or second optical paths (see first and second paths in claim 7 above, disclosed by Shahar in Figs. 12a-d).
Shahar does not explicitly disclose a galvo.
However, Cooper discloses a galvo (512, Fig. 3, paragraph [0022]) configured to rotate a movable reflective device (502, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a galvo for rotation of the movable reflective device as disclosed by Cooper in the device of Shahar in order to impart precise rotation of the polygon as it is a well-known type of motor used in beam scanners.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8-9, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: perform measurements of the targets so as to limit the relative movement to be less than a distance between the first and second ones of the targets, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: a frequency of the actuating of the movable reflective device is based on an inverse of a time duration for performing the shifting of the beam; and the movable reflective device is further configured to operate at the frequency, wherein the frequency is approximately 500 Hz or greater, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 21, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: perform measurements of the targets so as to limit the relative movement to be less than a distance between the first and second ones of the targets, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 22, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: a frequency of the actuating of the movable reflective device is based on an inverse of a time duration for performing the shifting of the beam; and the movable reflective device is further configured to operate at the frequency, wherein the frequency is approximately 500 Hz or greater, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reference Cooper is a secondary reference used to teach the manner in which the movable reflective device can be actuated/rotated. The main reference, Shahar discloses the whole system structure, including a movable reflective device. Arguably, a motor/actuator is implied within Shahar’s disclosure given that the reflective device is movable, and reflective devices in scanning systems require one to operate properly. However, because the type of motor/actuator used to move the rotating polygon in Shahar is not explicitly described, the secondary reference Cooper is used for this specific teaching. As explained in the rejection above, galvos are well-known to be used for beam scanners and are not novel. Therefore, the rejection is proper.
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 MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights