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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the added limitation “wherein an angle of the reflection is controlled based on the rotation” includes a broad scope under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications. Specifically, two embodiments falling within the broad scope of the language may be illuminated in the name of best practices of compact prosecution. Applicant discloses that a mirror velocity may directly adjust a tilt angle of a rotatable reflective surface and thus an angle of reflection is adjusted azimuthally relative to the mirror rotation axis. Under this interpretation of the functional limitation, a structural limitation (albeit indirectly) is imposed on the mirror structure (e.g. hinged flutter mirror of Fig. 15). Alternatively, the functional language is inherent to a rotating reflective surface as rotation necessitates at least a reflection angle circumferentially relative to the mirror rotation axis. As this is interpretation of the functional language is an inherent characteristic of a rotating mirror, the limitation is not necessarily directed to a non-elected invention. Relative to Applicant’s Fig. 15, the first interpretation of “wherein an angle of the reflection is controlled based on the rotation” is shown as the difference between Position I and Position II. The second interpretation of “wherein an angle of the reflection is controlled based on the rotation” would be more clearly seen in Applicant’s Fig. 14 whereby the rotating mirror inherently changed the angle of reflection as the facet rotates in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Election/Restrictions
There is no restriction by original presentation because the claim amendments are understood, as explained above, as including an interpretation that is generic to all elected and non-elected inventions.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 2/03/2026. Claims 1-2 and 17 are amended, claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 8,353,457 to Olmstead (hereinafter Olmstead).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Olmstead discloses a system (Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 8-12, 14), comprising: a projection device that is arranged to emit one or more laser beams (laser 115, e.g. Fig. 1-2); a spindle mirror mechanism (SMM) (“the motor 128 and the polygon mirror 125”, Fig. 1-2) that includes a rotatable reflective surface (polygon mirror 125, Fig. 1-2) that is configured to rotate around an axis to outwardly reflect the one or more laser beams (Figs. 1-2), wherein an angle of the reflection is controlled based on the rotation (“the polygon mirror 125 spins counterclockwise as viewed in FIG. 1, then as the side mirror 130A rotates completely past the incoming laser beam 120, the beam is reflected toward mirrors 135, 140, 145, 150, and 155 along the trajectory 160A shown”, Fig. 1); a kaleidoscopic mirror (e.g. mirrors 135-155, Figs. 1-2) with a plurality of facets (KMFs) in a concave arrangement around the SMM (Figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of KMFs are arranged to redirect the one or more reflected laser beams to create a virtual projector having a distinct virtual origin point and a sweep direction for each KMF (Figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 9-49); a plurality of cameras (imagers 808A-808C, Fig. 28) arranged around the KMFs to detect one or more reflections of light from an object surface that is illuminated by the one or more redirected laser beams (Figs. 27-28; col. 18, ln. 26-col. 19, ln. 45); and one or more processors that execute instructions to cause actions (controller 2730, Figs. 27-28, 32-33; col. 18, ln. 26-col. 19, ln. 45), including: obtaining a correspondence between the one or more detected light reflections and one or more identified virtual projectors based on timing information associated with each of the one or more detected light reflections (col. 20, ln. 66-col. 22, ln. 42 & col. 26, ll. 16-56); and using calibration of one or more motions for the one or more virtual projectors and geometric arrangement of their periodic sweep patterns to characterize each of the one or more laser beams as a periodic function of time for movement of the one or more virtual projectors in a three- dimensional (3D) environment (decoding process; col. 21, ll. 44-62). Note: The embodiment having plural imagers and a laser scanner is further described in the properly incorporated US Pat. 7,198,195 (hereinafter Bobba).
Regarding claim 6, Olmstead, via Bobba, discloses a rotational speed control that is used to operate the SMM within a range of speeds (Bobba: col. 10, ln. 10-45).
Regarding claim 7 , Olmstead discloses one or more event sensors that are configured to identify a time stamped event for each change in intensity of the one or more light reflections (barcode edge detection; col. 1, ln. 26-col. 2, ln. 8).
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.
Claims 2, 10, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olmstead, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. 5,729,475 to Romanik (hereinafter Romanik).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Olmstead discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: using a triangulation between an origin for each identified virtual projector origin and a position of each camera that detects the one or more light reflections to obtain 3D surface coordinates of the object surface, wherein a 3D representation of the object surface is obtained based on the 3D surface coordinates.
Romanik discloses the one or more processors cause obtaining a triangulation between an origin for each identified virtual projector origin and a position of each camera that detects the one or more light reflections to obtain 3D surface coordinates of the object surface, wherein a 3D representation of the object surface is obtained based on the 3D surface coordinates (col. 8-9).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to triangulate projection and imaging as taught by Romanik with the system as disclosed by Olmstead. The motivation would have been to measure objects for display and control applications (col. 1, ll. 7-14 & Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Olmstead discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the one or more processors cause further actions, comprising: using event data to calibrate measurement of an angle and a position for each virtual projector.
Romanik discloses the one or more processors cause further actions, comprising: using event data to calibrate measurement of an angle and a position for each virtual projector (“a separate calibration procedure in which the times of the scanning beams hitting a sensor relative to the synchronization signal are measured at a number of known angular directions relative to the optical scanner”; col. 7, ll. 35-40).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use event data as taught by Romanik with the system as disclosed by Olmstead. The motivation would have been to measure objects for display and control applications (col. 1, ll. 7-14 & Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Olmstead discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: guiding movement of one or more tools based on one or more of the three dimensional surface coordinates or the three dimensional representation of the object surface.
Romanik discloses guiding movement of one or more tools based on one or more of the three dimensional surface coordinates or the three dimensional representation of the object surface (col. 13, ll. 29-38).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to guide tool movement as taught by Romanik with the system as disclosed by Olmstead. The motivation would have been to control a robotic arm (col. 1, ll. 7-14 & Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Olmstead discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the one or more processors cause further actions, comprising: obtaining a look up table (LUT) that includes one or more precalculated relative accuracy values for one or more pair combinations of a virtual projector and a camera.
Romanik discloses the one or more processors cause further actions, comprising: obtaining a look up table (LUT) that includes one or more precalculated relative accuracy values for one or more pair combinations of a virtual projector and a camera (“measurements are then used to construct a table that relates the true angles to the times, or are used to fit a non-linear equation to the data. The angles can then be estimated by using interpolation from the table or calculated from the non-linear equations”; col. 5, ll. 55-59).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a data table as taught by Romanik with the system as disclosed by Olmstead. The motivation would have been to control a robotic arm (col. 1, ll. 7-14 & Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Olmstead does not disclose a rotatable reflective surface that varies an angle of reflection based on an adjustable velocity. Examiner agrees, though this argument appears to be moot as it is based on language that is no longer pending as the 11/20/2025 language was not entered. Olmstead evidences, in Fig. 1a, that there is a change to the reflection angle based on the mirror control as shown in the beam trajectory.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited prior art are directed to rotating mirror systems in which mirror tilt relative to an axis of rotation changes.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872