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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/971,858 filed on December 6, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/06/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 12/06/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8 “secure the retroreflector withstand” is missing the word “to” before withstand. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 “secure the retroreflector withstand” is missing the word “to” before withstand. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, The term “matched” in claims 1 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “matched” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification merely lists possible materials as including, but not limited to, glass, low expansion glass, ceramics, metals or metallics and repeats the language that the materials may be matched by coefficient-of-thermal-expansion (CTE) in order to further decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion. An ordinary skilled artisan would know that both glasses and metals can vary in CTE by orders of magnitude, but both are typically much smaller than most plastics. Prior art documents tend to disclose the specific glasses, such as Pyrex, borosilicate, fused quartz, or the specific metals such as Invar, from which one could then look-up the corresponding CTE (see e.g. Bleier 20070295155 paragraph [0021]) or make narrower statements such as Bleier US 2014/0029010 paragraph [0016]: “the at least one first material has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is identical to or substantially similar to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the at least second material, or has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is as close as practicable thereto”. Without any examples in the instant application of specific materials that are considered as having matching CTEs, and without any numeric ranges of the desired CTEs, the determination of what pairs of materials would or would not meet “matched” becomes both subjective and indefinite.
Further regarding claims 1 and 20, it is unclear if the recitation in the preamble of the intended use of “to decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion” does or does not limit the claim. As noted in MPEP §2111.02(II) Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785 ("[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.…Without such reliance, however, a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention." Consequently, "preamble language merely extolling benefits or features of the claimed invention does not limit the claim scope without clear reliance on those benefits or features as patentably significant."). In the current instance, the body of the claim further recites: (claim 1) “wherein the retroreflector is made of one or more materials having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE)” or (claim 20) “wherein the retroreflector is made of a glass having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE)”. As written, it is unclear if meeting this claimed feature alone is sufficient to fulfill the preambulatory function, or if more is implied/required.
Appropriate correction and/or comment is required.
Claims 2-19 depend from claim 1 and inherit and do not mitigate the above indefiniteness issues from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bleier US 6,786,608 B1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Bleier 2004).
Regarding claim 1, Bleier 2004 teaches (Figs. 1-3a) “A retroreflector assembly (retroreflector mount 10 with a retroreflector 12 mounted thereon) comprising materials matched by coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (e.g. col. 4 lines 2-5: “Mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c are preferably made of quartz so as to have relatively low coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE)” thus the material of each mirror plate match the material of the other mirror plates by CTE in that they are identical. See also col. 5 lines 5-12 where quartz and Invar® have matching CTE in that they are both relatively low, and similar enough that the relative thermal expansions of the various components of the retroreflector and the mount are minimized.) to decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion (e.g. col. 5 lines 5-12: “Although the CTE of quartz and the CTE of Invar® are not equal, both are relatively low, and thus the relative thermal expansions of the various components of the retroreflector and the mount are minimized under normal conditions.”), the assembly comprising:
a retroreflector (retroreflector 12 and mount 10) having a mirror panel (one of mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c) and an inset (Col. 5 lines 15-18: “mount 10 may instead have the extending (male) threaded member, while pedestal 16 has the receiving (female) threaded bore (not shown).” The extending male threaded member of 10 is an inset.) that has a cylindrical shape (A threaded connection between male and female members requires a cylindrical shape to function); and
a mounting structure (pedestal 16) having an opening configured to receive the inset (the female threaded bore of col. 5 lines 15-18: “mount 10 may instead have the extending (male) threaded member, while pedestal 16 has the receiving (female) threaded bore (not shown).”),
wherein the retroreflector is made of one or more materials (quartz and Invar® see col. 4 lines 2-5 and col. 5 lines 5-12) having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (e.g. col. 4 lines 2-5: “Mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c are preferably made of quartz so as to have relatively low coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE)” thus the material of each mirror plate match the material of the other mirror plates by CTE in that they are identical. See also col. 5 lines 5-12 where quartz and Invar® have matching CTE in that they are both relatively low, and similar enough that the relative thermal expansions of the various components of the retroreflector and the mount are minimized.), and
wherein the mounting structure is configured to secure the retroreflector withstand vibration and shock (e.g. col. 5 lines 12-15: “pedestal 16 can be used to secure mount 10” thus pedestal 16 secures 10 which holds 12, and thus 16 is configured to secure the retroreflector withstand vibration and shock for at least certain magnitudes of vibrations or shocks.).”
Regarding claim 5, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the retroreflector or mounting structure is made of a metal (col. 5 lines 4-9: “The various components of retroreflector mount 10 are preferably formed of a readily machined material having a relatively low CTE, for example a steel alloy such as Invar®.” thus the retroreflector is made of metal in that the mounting portion 10 thereof is made of metal).”
Regarding claim 6, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the inset comprises an inset threading (Col. 5 lines 15-18: “mount 10 may instead have the extending (male) threaded member”).”).”
Regarding claim 7, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 6, wherein the mounting structure opening is threaded (col. 5 lines 15-18: “pedestal 16 has the receiving (female) threaded bore (not shown).”) and configured to receive the inset threading (col. 5 lines 15-18: “mount 10 may instead have the extending (male) threaded member, while pedestal 16 has the receiving (female) threaded bore (not shown).”).”
Regarding claim 8, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the mirror panel has a flat reflective surface (e.g. col. 4 lines 5-7: “The reflective surfaces of mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c are polished to be very flat”).”
Regarding claim 9, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, the assembly further comprising:
a mounting member (the intertwined threads of col. 5 lines 15-18 are a mounting member “mount 10 may instead have the extending (male) threaded member, while pedestal 16 has the receiving (female) threaded bore (not shown).”) configured to secure the retroreflector to the mounting structure (e.g. col. 5 lines 12-15: “pedestal 16 can be used to secure mount 10” thus the intertwined threads of 10 and 16 secure the two bodies together.).”
Regarding claim 12, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the retroreflector is rotationally symmetric (see Figs. 1-3A 10 and 12 are rotationally symmetric in that similarly shaped structures are repeated three times about an axis centered on 16, and thus rotationally symmetric in a similar fashion to a similar extent as Figs. 31-42 of the instant application, and to a greater extent than Figs. 1-30 of the instant application. Note that some rotational symmetry, not complete rotational symmetry is considered to meet this limitation in light of paragraph [0070] of the instant application which discloses “For all of the retroreflector assembly embodiments shown in all of the figures, the retroreflector assemblies may be rotationally symmetric from an external housing perspective, while the internal elements of the assemblies will not usually have symmetry.”).”
Regarding claim 15, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the retroreflector comprises a second mirror panel (a second one of mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c) and a third mirror panel (a third one of mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c), each of the second mirror panel and the third mirror panel having an optically flat reflective surface (col. 4 lines 5-7: “The reflective surfaces of mirror plates 32a, 32b and 32c are polished to be very flat”) and disposed at a right angle to said mirror panel (col. 3 lines 54-56: “Retroreflector 12 has mirror plate 32a that is perpendicularly assembled to mirror plate 32b and perpendicularly assembled to mirror plate 32c”).”
Regarding claim 16, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 15, wherein the retroreflector comprises a housing (mount 10 is a housing in that it surrounds the bottom portions of 12 and meets all of the limitations of claims 17-19 that follow).”
Regarding claim 17, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 16, wherein the housing comprises a plurality of sides (10 has 3 sides, each side including 22, 26 and 28, such as 22a,26a and 28a) configured for at least partially enclosing therein said mirror panel and the second mirror panel and the third mirror panel (see Figs. 1-3A, 28a, 28b and 28c partially enclose the mirror panels that extend therebetween at least in the sense that the cover the surfaces of the grooves 34 formed by the lateral edges of the mirror panels and surround the lateral edges of any given panel 32 that meet at a right angle near the base of 12. See col. 4 lines 49-59).”
Regarding claim 18, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 16, wherein the housing comprises an interior mounting surface (See col. 4 lines 49-59, the surfaces of 28 that are adhered within grooves 34 are interior mounting surfaces in that they are interior to 26 and they mount 32/34).”
Regarding claim 19, Bleier 2004 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 18, wherein the interior mounting surface is substantially tangent with said mirror panel (the surfaces of 28 that are adhered within grooves 34 are substantially tangent with the lateral edges of 32 that form grooves 34).”
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bleier et al. US 2017/0307843 (hereafter Bleier 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Bleier 2017 teaches (Figs. 1-6) “A retroreflector assembly (the first embodiment of Figs. 1-6 including optical structure 20, which can be a hollow retroreflector see paragraph [0001]) comprising materials matched by coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (paragraph [0034]: “The protruding member and the mount are all preferably made of Invar. This allows for no distortion in the wavefront of any of the optical surfaces of the optical structure, even with temperature changes”) to decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion (paragraph [0034]: “This allows for no distortion in the wavefront of any of the optical surfaces of the optical structure, even with temperature changes”), the assembly comprising:
a retroreflector (optical structure 20, which can be a hollow retroreflector see paragraph [0001] and protruding member 10) having a mirror panel (paragraph [0002]: “Hollow retroreflectors are made of three mirror panels joined together, each preferably having an optically flat reflective surface”) and an inset (protruding member 10) that has a cylindrical shape (paragraph [0027]: “protruding member 10 and first cavity 60 are preferably circular” best seen in Fig. 6); and
a mounting structure (base element 30) having an opening configured to receive the inset (first cavity 60, paragraph [0028]: “First cavity 60 is sized to have second portion 16 of protruding member 10 fit snuggly within”),
wherein the retroreflector is made of one or more materials having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (paragraph [0034]: “The protruding member and the mount are all preferably made of Invar. This allows for no distortion in the wavefront of any of the optical surfaces of the optical structure, even with temperature changes”. Thus the protruding member which is part of the retroreflector is made of Invar which has the same CTE as the Invar from which the mounting structure is made), and
wherein the mounting structure is configured to secure the retroreflector (see Figs. 2-6 and e.g. paragraphs [0028]-[0030]) withstand vibration and shock (see paragraphs [0028]-[0030] 10 is secured to 60 via an adhesive 65 and/or mounting pins (not shown) thus is configured to secure the retroreflector withstand vibration and shock for at least certain magnitudes of vibrations or shocks).”
Regarding claim 4, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the mounting structure is made of a material having a coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) matched to a coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) of the inset (paragraph [0034]: “The protruding member and the mount are all preferably made of Invar. This allows for no distortion in the wavefront of any of the optical surfaces of the optical structure, even with temperature changes” Since they are made of the same material, the CTE of the material of the mounting structure, base element 30, and the inset, protruding member 10 are matched to each other).”
Regarding claim 5, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the retroreflector or mounting structure is made of a metal (paragraph [0034]: “The protruding member and the mount are all preferably made of Invar” thus both the inset of the retroreflector and the mounting structure are made of metal, because Invar is a nickel-iron alloy).”
Regarding claim 8, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the mirror panel has a flat reflective surface (paragraph [0002]: “Hollow retroreflectors are made of three mirror panels joined together, each preferably having an optically flat reflective surface”).”
Regarding claim 9, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, the assembly further comprising:
a mounting member (paragraph [0030]: “mounting pins (not shown)”) configured to secure the retroreflector to the mounting structure (paragraph [0030]: “as the mounting pins that get secured within openings 27A, 27B, 27C, etc., they press upon the circumference of second portion 16 to hold the protruding member within cavity 60.”).”
Regarding claim 11, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the mounting structure comprises a clamp (paragraph [0030]: “as the mounting pins that get secured within openings 27A, 27B, 27C, etc., they press upon the circumference of second portion 16 to hold the protruding member within cavity 60.” Thus the mounting pins are a clamp in that they clamp down on the circumference of 16 to secure it).”
Regarding claim 12, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the retroreflector is rotationally symmetric (see Figs. 1 and 6, 20 is rotationally symmetric in that mirror panels are repeated three times about an axis through the apex of the corner cube, see paragraph [0002] and thus rotationally symmetric in a similar fashion to a similar extent as the instant application. Note that some rotational symmetry, not complete rotational symmetry is considered to meet this limitation in light of paragraph [0070] of the instant application which discloses “For all of the retroreflector assembly embodiments shown in all of the figures, the retroreflector assemblies may be rotationally symmetric from an external housing perspective, while the internal elements of the assemblies will not usually have symmetry.”).”
Regarding claim 13, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, the assembly further comprising:
a mount (35/40 and the mounting mechanism received therein see Figs. 4 and 6 and paragraph [0031]: “Extending through bottom protrusion 35 and mounting structure 40 is another opening 45 through which is received the mounting mechanism (screw, bolt, etc.)”) for mounting the mounting structure to a structure or a surface (paragraph [0025]: “mounting structure 40 for mounting the mount to another structure” and paragraph [0031]: “Extending through bottom protrusion 35 and mounting structure 40 is another opening 45 through which is received the mounting mechanism (screw, bolt, etc.) used to secure the mounting structure to the another structure.”).”
Regarding claim 14, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 13, wherein the mount comprises a clamp, a screw, a thread, a pin, a chemical, a tether, a hinge, or a spring-loaded mechanism (paragraph [0031]: “mounting mechanism (screw, bolt, etc.).” Thus Bleier teaches a clamp in that a screw clamps the other structure to 40, a screw in that it is literally listed, a thread in that screws have threads, and a pin in that both screws and bolts are pins.).”
Regarding claim 15, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1, wherein the retroreflector comprises a second mirror panel and a third mirror panel (paragraph [0002]: “Hollow retroreflectors are made of three mirror panels joined together”), each of the second mirror panel and the third mirror panel having an optically flat reflective surface (paragraph [0002]: “each preferably having an optically flat reflective surface disposed at a right angle to the reflective surface of each of the other two panels.”) and disposed at a right angle to said mirror panel (paragraph [0002]: “each preferably having an optically flat reflective surface”).”
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.
Claims 2, 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleier et al. US 2017/0307843 (hereafter Bleier 2017) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohazzab et al. US 2009/0128910 A1 (hereafter Mohazzab), or over Bleier et al. US 2017/0307843 (hereafter Bleier 2017) in view of Mohazzab et al. US 2009/0128910 A1 (hereafter Mohazzab).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bleier 2017 teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 1,” however, Bleier 2017 does not explicitly teach (claim 2) “wherein the retroreflector is made of glass or low expansion glass.” or (claim 3) “wherein the mounting structure is made of glass or low expansion glass.”
Mohazzab teaches (Figs. 1-4) (claim 1) “A retroreflector assembly (retroreflector of Figs. 1A-4B) comprising materials matched by coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (e.g. paragraph [0037]: “the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from the same material… In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”) to decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion (paragraph [0037]: “The base 55 and retroreflector 40 assembly can experience stresses and strains from changing temperatures if the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from differing materials… the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”), the assembly comprising:
a retroreflector (retroreflector 40) having a mirror panel (mirrors of the petals 45A, 45B and 45C)… and
a mounting structure (base 55) having an opening (indentation 60 has an opening thereto see Fig. 3B) configured to receive the [retroreflector] (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “In some embodiments, the indentation 60 is formed as a negative image of the petals of the retroreflector” or paragraph [0036]: “the base 55 cradles the petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 in the indentation 60.”),
wherein the retroreflector is made of one or more materials having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (e.g. paragraph [0037]: “the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from the same material… In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.” Thus the petals of the retroreflector are made of a glass which matches the CTE of the material of the base 55), and
wherein the mounting structure is configured to secure the retroreflector withstand vibration and shock (see detailed explanations in paragraph [0036], where the securing can withstand vibration and shocks of some magnitude).”
(claim 2) “wherein the retroreflector is made of glass or low expansion glass (e.g. paragraph [0037]: “In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”).”
(claim 3) “wherein the mounting structure is made of glass or low expansion glass (e.g. paragraph [0037]: “In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”).”
Mohazzab further teaches (paragraph [0037]): “In some embodiments, the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from the same material. It is desirable that the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C be formed from the same material since different materials can have differing coefficients of thermal expansion. The base 55 and retroreflector 40 assembly can experience temperatures in the range of approximately 0-60 centigrade. The base 55 and retroreflector 40 assembly can experience stresses and strains from changing temperatures if the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from differing materials. It is desirable to minimize such stresses and strains since deformation of the retroreflector 40 can compromise its efficiency. The material should be stable under thermal cycling and have minimal hysteresis. The mirrors of the petals 45A, 45B and 45C are made of flat surfaces with good surface figure of around 1/10 HeNe wave or better. In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the material of all of the mirror plates, inset and mounting structure to be made of the same material, that material being a glass as taught by Mohazzab in the retroreflector assembly of Bleier 2017, because Mohazzab teaches (paragraph [0037]): “is desirable that the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C be formed from the same material since different materials can have differing coefficients of thermal expansion. The material should be stable under thermal cycling and have minimal hysteresis. The mirrors of the petals 45A, 45B and 45C are made of flat surfaces with good surface figure of around 1/10 HeNe wave or better. In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass”).
In the above combination, the material of not just the mirror panels (20), but also the inset (10) and the mount (30) of Bleier are changed to all be the same glass in view of Mohazzab. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because they would expect a superior thermal stability to Bleier, where the inset and mount were Invar, in that all three components have the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Regarding claim 20, Bleier 2017 teaches “A retroreflector assembly (the first embodiment of Figs. 1-6 including optical structure 20, which can be a hollow retroreflector see paragraph [0001]) comprising materials matched by coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (paragraph [0034]: “The protruding member and the mount are all preferably made of Invar. This allows for no distortion in the wavefront of any of the optical surfaces of the optical structure, even with temperature changes”) to decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion (paragraph [0034]: “This allows for no distortion in the wavefront of any of the optical surfaces of the optical structure, even with temperature changes”), the assembly comprising:
a retroreflector (optical structure 20, which can be a hollow retroreflector see paragraph [0001] and protruding member 10) having a mirror panel (paragraph [0002]: “Hollow retroreflectors are made of three mirror panels joined together, each preferably having an optically flat reflective surface”) and an inset (protruding member 10) that has a cylindrical shape (paragraph [0027]: “protruding member 10 and first cavity 60 are preferably circular” best seen in Fig. 6);
a mounting structure (base element 30) having an opening configured to receive the inset (first cavity 60, paragraph [0028]: “First cavity 60 is sized to have second portion 16 of protruding member 10 fit snuggly within”); and
a mounting member (paragraph [0030]: “mounting pins (not shown)”) configured to secure the retroreflector to the mounting structure (paragraph [0030]: “as the mounting pins that get secured within openings 27A, 27B, 27C, etc., they press upon the circumference of second portion 16 to hold the protruding member within cavity 60.”)… and
wherein the mounting structure is configured to secure the retroreflector (see Figs. 2-6 and e.g. paragraphs [0028]-[0030]) withstand vibration and shock (see paragraphs [0028]-[0030] 10 is secured to 60 via an adhesive 65 and/or mounting pins (not shown) thus is configured to secure the retroreflector withstand vibration and shock for at least certain magnitudes of vibrations or shocks).”
However, Bleier 2017 fails to teach “wherein the retroreflector is made of a glass having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE),
Mohazzab teaches (Figs. 1-4) (claim 20) “A retroreflector assembly (retroreflector of Figs. 1A-4B) comprising materials matched by coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (e.g. paragraph [0037]: “the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from the same material… In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”) to decrease optical errors induced by thermal contraction or expansion (paragraph [0037]: “The base 55 and retroreflector 40 assembly can experience stresses and strains from changing temperatures if the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from differing materials… the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”), the assembly comprising:
a retroreflector (retroreflector 40) having a mirror panel (mirrors of the petals 45A, 45B and 45C)… and
a mounting structure (base 55) having an opening (indentation 60 has an opening thereto see Fig. 3B) configured to receive the [retroreflector] (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “In some embodiments, the indentation 60 is formed as a negative image of the petals of the retroreflector” or paragraph [0036]: “the base 55 cradles the petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 in the indentation 60.”),
a mounting member (paragraph [0036] adhesive) configured to secure the retroreflector to the mounting structure (see paragraph [0036]),
wherein the retroreflector is made of a glass having a matched coefficient-of-thermal expansion (CTE) (e.g. paragraph [0037]: “the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from the same material… In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.” Thus the petals of the retroreflector are made of a glass which matches the CTE of the material of the base 55), and
wherein the mounting structure is configured to secure the retroreflector withstand vibration and shock (see detailed explanations in paragraph [0036], where the securing can withstand vibration and shocks of some magnitude).”
Mohazzab further teaches (paragraph [0037]): “In some embodiments, the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from the same material. It is desirable that the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C be formed from the same material since different materials can have differing coefficients of thermal expansion. The base 55 and retroreflector 40 assembly can experience temperatures in the range of approximately 0-60 centigrade. The base 55 and retroreflector 40 assembly can experience stresses and strains from changing temperatures if the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C are formed from differing materials. It is desirable to minimize such stresses and strains since deformation of the retroreflector 40 can compromise its efficiency. The material should be stable under thermal cycling and have minimal hysteresis. The mirrors of the petals 45A, 45B and 45C are made of flat surfaces with good surface figure of around 1/10 HeNe wave or better. In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the material of all of the mirror plates, inset and mounting structure to be made of the same material, that material being a glass as taught by Mohazzab in the retroreflector assembly of Bleier 2017, because Mohazzab teaches (paragraph [0037]): “is desirable that the base 55 and petals 45A, 45B and 45C be formed from the same material since different materials can have differing coefficients of thermal expansion. The material should be stable under thermal cycling and have minimal hysteresis. The mirrors of the petals 45A, 45B and 45C are made of flat surfaces with good surface figure of around 1/10 HeNe wave or better. In some embodiments, the individual petals 45A, 45B and 45C of the retroreflector 40 and the base 55 are made of glass”).
In the above combination, the material of not just the mirror panels (20), but also the inset (10) and the mount (30) of Bleier are changed to all be the same glass in view of Mohazzab. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because they would expect a superior thermal stability to Bleier, where the inset and mount were Invar, in that all three components have the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleier et al. US 2017/0307843 (hereafter Bleier 2017) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paine et al. US 3,574,448 (hereafter Paine).
Regarding claim 10, Bleier teaches “The retroreflector assembly in claim 9, wherein the mounting member… configured to press on a portion of the inset (paragraph [0030]: “as the mounting pins that get secured within openings 27A, 27B, 27C, etc., they press upon the circumference of second portion 16 to hold the protruding member within cavity 60.”).”
However, Bleier fails to specifically teach “wherein the mounting member comprises a screw.”
Paine teaches a mount for a trihedral mirror that one would recognize as being a retroreflector.
Paine teaches “wherein the mounting member comprises a screw (col. 1 lines 51-56 :“adjusting screws, formed of an alloy having a small coefficient of thermal expansion, for accommodating and adjustable displacement of the surfaces of the mirror segments while inhibiting an introduction of heat-induced error.” col. 3 lines 9-11: “convenient means such as screw-threaded anchor pins 54”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the pin of Bleier a threaded pin, i.e. a screw, as taught by Paine, because Paine teaches that screws, formed of an alloy having a small coefficient of thermal expansion provide the benefit of accommodating and adjustable displacement of the surfaces of the mirror segments while inhibiting an introduction of heat-induced error (Paine col. 1 lines 51-56).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evans et al. US 2016/0282525 A1 “Spherically Mounted Retroreflector That Includes a Replicated Cube Corner” Fig. 4 pertinent to at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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 L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights