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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 and 08/10/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/10/2026.
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the support unit comprises at least two protruding hooks…to cooperate with a guiding structure of the passive optical element” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
This is unclear because the instant application does not show or disclose the protruding hooks cooperating with a guiding structure of the passive optical element. The application claims that the passive optical element is rigidly fixed to the carrier unit, which is engaged with the support unit, and this structural relationship does not involved the support unit’s hooks cooperating with a passive optical element. The passive optical element is not disclosed to have a guiding structure. Instead, the instant application discloses the support unit has hooks which cooperate with a guiding structure of a passive component 7 such as a rail (¶0039).
For the purposes of examination, examiner suggests and will use “the support unit comprises at least two protruding hooks…to cooperate with a guiding structure
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) 1-7, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (US 20100073793 A1), hereinafter Meyer.
Regarding independent claim 1, Meyer discloses a light redirecting optical module for a light curtain, the light redirecting optical module comprising: a passive optical element (40; Fig. 3; ¶0021) to change a direction of an incident light beam (Fig. 5), a carrier unit (30; Fig. 3; ¶0022) to which the passive optical element (40) is rigidly fixed (¶0022), and a support unit (20/50; Fig. 3; ¶0019), wherein the carrier unit (30) has a curved surface (32; Fig. 3; ¶0020) at a side facing away from the passive optical element (40) (Fig. 3) and the support unit (20/50) has a complementary curved surface (22; Fig. 3; ¶0023) facing the curved surface (32) of the carrier unit (30), wherein the curved surfaces (22, 32) together form a rotary joint (coupling of 32 with 22; Fig. 3; ¶0028), an engagement element (62; Fig. 3; ¶0028) configured to keep the two curved surfaces (22, 32) engaged to each other so as to allow for a guided rotary movement of the two surfaces relative to each other (¶0028).
Regarding claim 2, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the passive optical element (40) is a single mirror (¶0021) having a single reflecting surface (Figs. 3, 5; ¶0021); or a double mirror having two plane reflecting surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 2, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the rotary joint (coupling of 30 with 22) has a set of rotary axes (Figs. 1-2; ¶0027) and the rotary axes of the rotary joint (coupling of 30 with 22) intersect a center of the mirror surface of the single mirror (Figs. 1-3; ¶0027) or a symmetry point of the double mirror.
Regarding claim 4, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses a handle (210/230; Fig. 6; ¶0046) operable to move the carrier unit (30) relative to the support unit (20/50) to align a light beam redirected by the passive optical element (40) (Fig. 6; ¶0046) with a target corresponding to a receiver of the light curtain1 (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 4, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the handle (210/230) is connected to the carrier unit (30) and can be removed from the carrier unit (30) (Fig. 6; ¶0052).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the engagement element (62) comprise a screw (62; Fig. 3; ¶0028) connecting the carrier unit (30) and the support unit (20/50) (Fig. 3; ¶0028).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses at least one of the carrier unit (30) or the support unit (20/50) are made of a material transparent to UV light (¶0025-¶0026; at least plastics in this list of materials is transparent to UV light) at least in a region where the curved surfaces of the carrier unit (30) and the support unit (20/50) are in engagement with each other (¶0025-¶0026; if either 20 or 40 are made of this material then this would necessarily encompass the region where the curved surfaces are in engagement with each other).
Regarding claim 16, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the support unit (20/50) comprises at least two tabs (54; Fig. 3; ¶0024) forming connection areas (¶0024) for connecting the support unit (20/50) to a housing structure (90; Figs. 4-5; ¶0033).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 5, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the handle (210/230) is configured to be separated from the carrier unit (30) via at least one of a positive locking connection or a force locking connection (threaded connection; ¶0052).
Regarding claim 19, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 5, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses a region of small thickness or diameter (where 210 meets 215; Fig. 6); therebetween having a reduced material strength (¶0052; 215 may be welded to 210, therefore there would result a section with reduced material strength either at the point of welding or a section adjacent to the point of welding) and/or a predetermined breaking point between the handle and the carrier unit to facilitate destructive separation of the handle from the carrier unit.
Regarding claim 20, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer further discloses the rotary joint (coupling of 30 with 22) is configured to allow for movement with three rotational degrees of freedom (¶0027).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20100073793 A1) in view of Wohlers et al. (US 20220364916 A1), hereinafter Wohlers.
Regarding claim 17, Meyer discloses the light redirecting optical module according to claim 1, as set forth above. Meyer does not disclose the support unit comprises at least two protruding hooks with a curved surface at opposite sides configured to cooperate with a guiding structure of the passive optical element.
However, Wohlers teaches a light redirecting optical module comprising a passive optical element (40; Fig. 3; ¶0070) to change a direction of an incident light beam (¶0070), a carrier unit (35; Fig. 3; ¶0070) to which the passive optical element (40) is fixed (Fig. 3; ¶0070), and a support unit (31; Fig. 3; ¶0064), wherein the support unit (31) comprises at least two protruding hooks (33; Fig. 3; ¶0072) with a curved surface (34; Fig. 3) at opposite sides (Fig. 3; ¶0074) configured to cooperate with a guiding structure (23; Fig. 6; ¶0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer to incorporate the protruding hooks as taught by Wohlers for the purpose of securely and removably positioning and attaching a mirror to a housing (¶0012 of Wohlers).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kano (US 20160341957 A1) and Goosen (US 4932769 A) disclose similar light redirecting optical modules comprising a passive optical element, a carrier unit, and a support unit. Welding (Mechanical Elements. “Who Says Welding Doesn’t Affect Strength? – The Mechanic.” Mechanical Elements, 17 June 2021, https://mechanicalelements.com/who-says-welding-doesnt-affect-strength/.) teaches that welding affects material strength.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 20th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The recitation "a light curtain" is in the preamble of claim 1, which is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Therefore, the recitation of claim 4 "corresponding to a receiver of the light curtain" is being considered as an intended use of the device and has not been given any patentable weight.
Prosecution Insights