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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 10/10/2024. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-19 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-19 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. DE10 2022 108 738.7, filed on 04/11/2022, has been filed in this matter.
Patent Prosecution Highway
Acknowledgment is made of the application being granted to participate in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program from the petition filed under 37 CFR 1.102(a), filed August 26, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck (US 20110292406 A1) in view of Leitgeb (US 20220244178 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hollenbeck discloses:
A measuring device for optically measuring objects, the measuring device comprising:
a camera (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], “one or more cameras 105 acquire images of the projection”); and
a laser projection unit (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], “A monochromatic or multi spectral light pattern 101 such as laser dots, laser lines, white or coloured stripes, is projected from a light source 102 onto the object 103. The projected light is then reflected 104 and one or more cameras 105 acquire images of the projection”) having a laser light source (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], light source 102),
wherein the laser projection unit is configured to project laser light (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], “A monochromatic or multi spectral light pattern 101 such as laser dots, laser lines, white or coloured stripes, is projected from a light source 102 onto the object 103. The projected light is then reflected 104 and one or more cameras 105 acquire images of the projection”) onto an object to be measured (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], object 103),
wherein the camera is configured to record images of the object with the laser light projected onto the object, …
… wherein the driver power is varied by varying at least one of an injection current and a driver voltage, to increase a bandwidth of the projected laser wavelengths (Hollenberk, FIG. 1, [0059], “The photodiode module's output 112 is sent to signal processing electronics 111, which then continuously regulate the power of the light source via connection 113”).
Hollenberk discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the measuring device is configured to supply the laser light source with a driver power varying during an exposure time of the camera, and …
However, Leitgeb, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A SEMICONDUCTOR-LASER-DIODE-BASED SS- INTERFEROMETER SYSTEM), discloses:
… wherein the measuring device is configured to supply the laser light source with a driver power varying during an exposure time of the camera (Leitgeb, [0008], “Present-day SS-OCT systems use complex microelectromechanical laser diode systems (MEMS) in order to tune spectral laser lines with a high coherence length (in the range of cm to m) with a high repetition rate (in the range of kHz to MHz) over a wide wavelength range of up to 150 nm. This is necessary in order to obtain high-resolution imagings very rapidly over a high measurement depth particularly in transparent organic tissue, such as the human eye, with a high axial resolution”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hollenberk with the SS-OCT systems of Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of SS-OCT systems as disclosed by Leitgeb and how to use them to modify Hollenberk. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of SS-OCT systems in projection imagers.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, and Hollenberk further discloses:
… wherein the laser light source is a semiconductor laser (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], light source 102).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the laser projection unit is configured to supply the laser light source with at least one of modulated current pulses and modulated voltage pulses having pulse sequences ranging from 10 nanoseconds to 10 microseconds and a duty cycle ranging from 5 to 500.
The pulse sequence and duty cycle of the laser is a result-effective variable. In that, if the laser is not receiving the proper pulse sequence, the invention would fail to operate. If the sequence and cycling is either too high or too low, issues would arise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the laser projection unit is configured to supply the laser light source with at least one of modulated current pulses and modulated voltage pulses having pulse sequences ranging from 10 nanoseconds to 10 microseconds and a duty cycle ranging from 5 to 500,” since determining the optimum sequence and cycling is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the laser projection unit is configured to project blue laser light in the wavelength range from 440 to 470 nanometers.
However, throughout Leitgeb discusses throughout its background and summary a variety of related disclosures with different bands of wavelengths ([0008], “over a wide wavelength range of up to 150 nm,” [0016], “at the wavelength of 1300 nm used, a sweep range (tuning range) of at least 25 nm (better 75 nm) would have to be realized in order to enable a required resolution in air of 30 μm (better 10 μm),” and [0017], “the laser diode is operated in a spectrally narrowband fashion at a wavelength of approximately 850 nm with a coherence length of typically 100 mm and a spectral width of approximately 0.007 nm”)
The wavelength of the laser is a result-effective variable. In that, if the laser is not tuned to the proper wavelength, the invention would fail to operate. If the wavelength is either too high or too low, issues would arise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “… wherein the laser projection unit is configured to project blue laser light in the wavelength range from 440 to 470 nanometers,” since determining the optimum wavelength is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, and Leitgeb further discloses:
… wherein the laser projection unit includes at least one of a diffractive optical element (Leitgeb, [0115], “An (e.g. fiber-based) Bragg reflector/grating (FBG) can be used for better spectral stabilization of the tuning range”), a Powell lens, and a wavelength-dependent grating (Leitgeb, [0115], “An (e.g. fiber-based) Bragg reflector/grating (FBG) can be used for better spectral stabilization of the tuning range”), through which laser light generated by the laser light source is guided.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the diffractive elements of Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Bragg gratings as disclosed by Leitgeb and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known diffractive elements.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, and Hollenberk further discloses:
… wherein the laser projection unit is a laser line generator (Hollenberk, FIGS. 2A & 2B, [0067], “laser light source 102, with a particular embodiment of said light source 102 being the line generator module of FIGS. 2A and 2B”), a multi-line generator, or a random dot matrix generator.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, and Hollenberk further discloses:
… wherein the laser light source is connected to an optical fiber (Hollenberk, [0036], “At least one optical fibre can preferably be provided as a way of transporting the light between the at least one light source and the projection means”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the optical fiber is coiled in a loop-shaped manner.
However, upon review of the specification, Applicant has not provided any further information regarding this limitation other than in [0029]:
This effect can be further amplified by laying the optical fibers in the form of loops.
Additionally in [0066]:
This can additionally be amplified by the fact that the optical fiber 8 is laid in the form of loops, i.e., along a winding circular or meandering route.
Applicant does not claim nor describe these “loops” in any manner. There is no discussion as to how tight the loops are, how many loops there are, etc. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner understands any loop or looping of the optical fiber to be within the bounds of this limitation.
Examiner generally avoids taking Official Notice, however, in this case, Examiner notes that coiling fibers and cables is a common practice in many fields to store, tidy, and clean up wiring. It is a practice used by electricians, theatre technicians, scientists, engineers, and homeowners. Such coiling would inherently contain one or more loops and would be known to PHOSITA before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Hollenberk discloses:
A method for optically measuring objects, the method comprising:
projecting laser light onto the object to be measured with a laser projection unit having a laser light source (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], “A monochromatic or multi spectral light pattern 101 such as laser dots, laser lines, white or coloured stripes, is projected from a light source 102 onto the object 103. The projected light is then reflected 104 and one or more cameras 105 acquire images of the projection”);
recording, with a camera (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], “one or more cameras 105 acquire images of the projection”), images of the object with the projected laser light; …
… wherein the driver power is varied by varying at least one of an injection current and a driver voltage, to increase a bandwidth of the projected laser wavelengths (Hollenberk, FIG. 1, [0059], “The photodiode module's output 112 is sent to signal processing electronics 111, which then continuously regulate the power of the light source via connection 113”).
Hollenbeck discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… operating the laser light source with a driver power varying during an exposure time of the camera, …
However, Leitgeb, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A SEMICONDUCTOR-LASER-DIODE-BASED SS- INTERFEROMETER SYSTEM), discloses:
… operating the laser light source with a driver power varying during an exposure time of the camera (Leitgeb, [0008], “Present-day SS-OCT systems use complex microelectromechanical laser diode systems (MEMS) in order to tune spectral laser lines with a high coherence length (in the range of cm to m) with a high repetition rate (in the range of kHz to MHz) over a wide wavelength range of up to 150 nm. This is necessary in order to obtain high-resolution imagings very rapidly over a high measurement depth particularly in transparent organic tissue, such as the human eye, with a high axial resolution”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hollenberk with the SS-OCT systems of Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of SS-OCT systems as disclosed by Leitgeb and how to use them to modify Hollenberk. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of SS-OCT systems in projection imagers.
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 12, and Leitgeb further discloses:
… wherein the injection current has during the exposure time at least one full wave of the injection current profile (Leitgeb, [0008], “Present-day SS-OCT systems use complex microelectromechanical laser diode systems (MEMS) in order to tune spectral laser lines with a high coherence length (in the range of cm to m) with a high repetition rate (in the range of kHz to MHz) over a wide wavelength range of up to 150 nm. This is necessary in order to obtain high-resolution imagings very rapidly over a high measurement depth particularly in transparent organic tissue, such as the human eye, with a high axial resolution”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 11, and Hollenberk further discloses:
… wherein the laser light source is a semiconductor laser (Hollenbeck, FIG. 1, [0054], light source 102).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… operating the laser light source with at least one of modulated current pulses and modulated voltage pulses having pulse lengths ranging from 10 nanoseconds to 10 microseconds and a duty cycle ranging from 5 to 500.
The pulse sequence and duty cycle of the laser is a result-effective variable. In that, if the laser is not receiving the proper pulse sequence, the invention would fail to operate. If the sequence and cycling is either too high or too low, issues would arise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the laser projection unit is configured to supply the laser light source with at least one of modulated current pulses and modulated voltage pulses having pulse sequences ranging from 10 nanoseconds to 10 microseconds and a duty cycle ranging from 5 to 500,” since determining the optimum sequence and cycling is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… projecting laser light onto the object to be measured with the laser light source in the wavelength range from 440 to 470 nanometers.
However, throughout Leitgeb discusses throughout its background and summary a variety of related disclosures with different bands of wavelengths ([0008], “over a wide wavelength range of up to 150 nm,” [0016], “at the wavelength of 1300 nm used, a sweep range (tuning range) of at least 25 nm (better 75 nm) would have to be realized in order to enable a required resolution in air of 30 μm (better 10 μm),” and [0017], “the laser diode is operated in a spectrally narrowband fashion at a wavelength of approximately 850 nm with a coherence length of typically 100 mm and a spectral width of approximately 0.007 nm”)
The wavelength of the laser is a result-effective variable. In that, if the laser is not tuned to the proper wavelength, the invention would fail to operate. If the wavelength is either too high or too low, issues would arise.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “… wherein the laser projection unit is configured to project blue laser light in the wavelength range from 440 to 470 nanometers,” since determining the optimum wavelength is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 17, The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 11
… coupling laser light from the laser light source into an optical fiber to mix the input-coupled laser light by multi-reflections in the optical fiber such that light leaving the optical fiber has at a light exit of the optical fiber a degree of coherence which is reduced spatially and temporally compared with the input-coupled laser light.
Regarding Claim 18, The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose:
… guiding the laser light in the optical fiber in loops along a path which is curved at least in sections.
However, upon review of the specification, Applicant has not provided any further information regarding this limitation other than in [0029]:
This effect can be further amplified by laying the optical fibers in the form of loops.
Additionally in [0066]:
This can additionally be amplified by the fact that the optical fiber 8 is laid in the form of loops, i.e., along a winding circular or meandering route.
Applicant does not claim nor describe these “loops” in any manner. There is no discussion as to how tight the loops are, how many loops there are, etc. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner understands any loop or looping of the optical fiber to be within the bounds of this limitation.
Examiner generally avoids taking Official Notice, however, in this case, Examiner notes that coiling fibers and cables is a common practice in many fields to store, tidy, and clean up wiring. It is a practice used by electricians, theatre technicians, scientists, engineers, and homeowners. Such coiling would inherently contain one or more loops and would be known to PHOSITA before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck (US 20110292406 A1), in view of Leitgeb (US 20220244178 A1), and in further view of Rezk (US 20110205523 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 1, and Leitgeb further discloses:
… wherein the laser projection unit is configured to supply the laser light source with:
a pulse-modulated injection current (Leitgeb, [0061], “In order to realize large tuning ranges with a repetition rate of approximately 1 kHz, commercially available VCSEL laser diodes have to be modified or they should be operated in a pulsed manner. To that end, the control unit present is designed to vary time and amplitude of the current pulses for the periodic current modulation”), …
… wherein each of the temporally shaped voltage pulses has a varying voltage (Leitgeb, FIG. 3, [0065], “typical electronic schematic shown in FIG. 3, using an operational amplifier 302, where the trans-impedance gain is set by the value of feedback resistor R.sub.f 303 and the feedback capacitor C.sub.f 304 is used to set the amplification bandwidth; the output signal is a voltage V.sub.out 305”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the voltage pulses of Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of voltage pulses as disclosed by Leitgeb and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known voltage pulses in scanning systems.
The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a triangular, sawtooth-shaped, or sinusoidal injection current profile, or
at least one of temporally shaped injection current pulses and temporally shaped voltage pulses,
wherein each of the temporally shaped injection current pulses has a varying current, and …
However, Rezk, in a similar field of endeavor (COMPACT FIBER OPTIC GEOMETRY FOR A COUNTER CHIRP FMCW COHERENT LASER RADAR), discloses:
… a triangular, sawtooth-shaped, or sinusoidal injection current profile (Rezk, FIG. 1, [0029], “In a common form of modulation for this type of application, the injector current modulation signals are uniquely shaped for each laser and are distorted sawtooth waves intended to produce a linear sawtooth frequency modulation envelope for the output of the laser”), or
at least one of temporally shaped injection current pulses and temporally shaped voltage pulses (Rezk, [0029], “the frequency of the laser is modulated directly by modulating the laser's injection current”),
wherein each of the temporally shaped injection current pulses has a varying current (Rezk, [0029], “the frequency of the laser is modulated directly by modulating the laser's injection current”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the modulated frequency of Rezk. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of modulated frequencies as disclosed by Rezk and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known frequency modulations in scanning systems.
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 11, and Leitgeb further discloses:
… operating the laser light source with:
a pulse-modulated injection current (Leitgeb, [0061], “In order to realize large tuning ranges with a repetition rate of approximately 1 kHz, commercially available VCSEL laser diodes have to be modified or they should be operated in a pulsed manner. To that end, the control unit present is designed to vary time and amplitude of the current pulses for the periodic current modulation”), …
… wherein each of the temporally shaped voltage pulses has a varying voltage (Leitgeb, FIG. 3, [0065], “typical electronic schematic shown in FIG. 3, using an operational amplifier 302, where the trans-impedance gain is set by the value of feedback resistor R.sub.f 303 and the feedback capacitor C.sub.f 304 is used to set the amplification bandwidth; the output signal is a voltage V.sub.out 305”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the voltage pulses of Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of voltage pulses as disclosed by Leitgeb and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known voltage pulses in scanning systems.
The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a triangular, sawtooth-shaped, or sinusoidal injection current profile, or
at least one of temporally shaped injection current pulses and temporally shaped voltage pulses,
wherein each of the temporally shaped injection current pulses has a varying current, and …
However, Rezk, in a similar field of endeavor (COMPACT FIBER OPTIC GEOMETRY FOR A COUNTER CHIRP FMCW COHERENT LASER RADAR), discloses:
… a triangular, sawtooth-shaped, or sinusoidal injection current profile (Rezk, FIG. 1, [0029], “In a common form of modulation for this type of application, the injector current modulation signals are uniquely shaped for each laser and are distorted sawtooth waves intended to produce a linear sawtooth frequency modulation envelope for the output of the laser”), or
at least one of temporally shaped injection current pulses and temporally shaped voltage pulses (Rezk, [0029], “the frequency of the laser is modulated directly by modulating the laser's injection current”),
wherein each of the temporally shaped injection current pulses has a varying current (Rezk, [0029], “the frequency of the laser is modulated directly by modulating the laser's injection current”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the modulated frequency of Rezk. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of modulated frequencies as disclosed by Rezk and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known frequency modulations in scanning systems.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck (US 20110292406 A1), in view of Leitgeb (US 20220244178 A1), and in further view of Otani (US 20200064646 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 8, and Hollenberk further discloses:
… wherein an exit of the optical fiber is guided onto an optical lens for collimating the laser light (Hollenberk, FIG. 1, [0062], fibre collimator 203) and …
The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the collimated laser light exiting the optical lens is guided onto a Powell lens for generating a laser line.
However, Otani, in a similar field of endeavor (LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEM), discloses:
… the collimated laser light exiting the optical lens is guided onto a Powell lens for generating a laser line (Otani, [0004], “a Powell lens is used as the directional lens”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the Powell lens of Otani. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Powell lenses as disclosed by Otani and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known optical elements in known ways.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses Claim 17, and Hollenberk further discloses:
… collimating the laser light exiting the optical fiber (Hollenberk, FIG. 1, [0062], fibre collimator 203); and …
The combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… generating a laser line from the collimated point-type laser light with a Powell lens.
However, Otani, in a similar field of endeavor (LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEM), discloses:
… generating a laser line from the collimated point-type laser light with a Powell lens (Otani, [0004], “a Powell lens is used as the directional lens”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb with the Powell lens of Otani. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Powell lenses as disclosed by Otani and how to use them to modify the combination of Hollenberk and Leitgeb. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known optical elements in known ways.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0079. Examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST (8-4 CST).
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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner' s Supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877