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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Applicant has filed an amendment (dated 28 January 2026) in response to the Notice of Non-compliant Amendment dated 02 January 2026. Applicant has not filed a response to the Non-final rejection dated 02 January 2026. The Examiner cannot respond to the amendments, for a reply to the Non-final rejection dated 02 January 2026 has not been filed. Examiner is restarting period of reply since the previous office action incorrectly included a two-month shortened statutory period for reply instead of a three (3) month reply period.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, and 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical waveguide type multiplexer, the light condensing device and the reflection member are aligned at the height of the multiplexed light beam and the condensed light beam, and wherein the optical scanning mirror device further has a rotation outer frame inside which the movable mirror is provided in rotatable in a first rotation direction, and the rotation outer frame is provided inside the non-rotation outer frame in rotatable in a second rotation direction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, and 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reflected light beam" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 utilizes a single block/paragraph indent to separate the claim limitations. “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, and 3-5 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the terms “optical scanning type video projection device" and "optical waveguide type multiplexer” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “type” 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.
“Type” fails to define any clear structural boundaries, for “optical scanning type video projection device" and "optical waveguide type multiplexer” could each encompass multiple materially different structures, operating principles, and optical components. The claim limitation does not specify what characteristics qualify a device as being of that “type,” and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the scope of the claims or ascertain whether a given device falls within or outside of the claimed subject matter. The light source module device, first substrate, plurality of light source elements, plurality of optical waveguides, and optical multiplexing unit have been rendered indefinite by the use of “optical scanning type video projection device" and "optical waveguide type multiplexer.”
Furthermore, the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.
With respect to Claim 3, the sentences recite “wherein the optical scanning mirror device further has a rotation outer frame inside which the movable mirror is provided in rotatable in a first rotation direction, and the rotation outer frame is provided inside the non-rotation outer frame in rotatable in a second rotation direction” which seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the phrase “in rotatable in a...rotation direction” 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.
“[W]herein the optical scanning mirror device further has a rotation outer frame inside which the movable mirror is provided in rotatable in a first rotation direction, and the rotation outer frame is provided inside the non-rotation outer frame in rotatable in a second rotation direction” is indefinite because the phrases “in rotatable in a...rotation direction” are grammatically unclear and fail to specify the axis, range, or manner of rotation. It is uncertain whether the rotation refers to the movable mirror, the rotation outer frame, their relative motion, etc., and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP § 2173.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an optical system and device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadama et al. JP 2005274702 A (see machine translation; herein after "Hamada") in view of Muto et al. JP 2009237224 A (see machine translation; herein after "Muto").
With respect to Claim 1, Hadama discloses an optical scanning type video projection device (fifth invention/embodiment; [0063-73] and [0152-159]; fig. 10-11) comprising:
a light source module device (light emitting points of adjacent light emitting means, wherein light emitting point is light emitting surface of a laser diode of fifth invention; [0063-64]) having a first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155]), wherein a plurality of light source elements (light-emitting means arranged in an array are laser diodes of fifth invention; [0073]) and an optical waveguide type multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]) having a plurality of optical waveguides (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) and an optical multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; fig. 11) are mounted on the first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155]), the optical waveguide type multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]) has a plate shape (flat shape as seen in fig. 11), lights from the plurality of light source elements (light-emitting means arranged in an array are laser diodes of fifth invention; [0073]) enter the plurality of optical waveguides (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) respectively, and the optical waveguide type multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]) multiplexes ([0155]) the lights respectively entered to the plurality of optical waveguides (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) to emit a multiplexed light beam (e.g., figs. 2 and 11);
an optical scanning mirror device (mirror array block 25; [0153]), wherein the optical scanning mirror device (mirror array block 25; [0153]) includes a second substrate (plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; [0153]), a non-rotation outer frame (plurality of upwardly extending wall portions formed on substrate end portion and inclined surface 36a; [0154]), and a mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]), the non-rotation outer frame (plurality of upwardly extending wall portions formed on substrate end portion and inclined surface 36a; [0154]) and the mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]) are mounted on the second substrate (plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; [0153]) to form the optical scanning mirror device (mirror array block 25; [0153]), and a main surface (inclined concave mirror surfaces aligned with inclined surface 36a; [0153-154]; as seen in fig. 10) of the mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]) is in parallel (plurality of V-grooves 19 to 23 for fixing optical fibers are formed to face each of concave mirrors 6 to 10 in correspondence therewith; [0153]) with a main surface (plurality of V-grooves 19 to 23; [0153]) of the second substrate (plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; [0153]) in a non-operation state (fig. 10-11);
a mounting substrate (of waveguide structure 24 and mirror array block 25, as seen in fig. 11) having an upper mounting portion (upper mounting portion comprising waveguide structure 24; fig. 11) and a lower mounting portion (lower mounting portion comprising mirror array block 25; fig. 10-11) having a step (flat top portion of inclined surface 36a; [0154]; fig. 10) therebetween, the first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155]) being mounted on the upper mounting portion (upper mounting portion comprising waveguide structure 24; fig. 11) and the second substrate (plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; [0153]) being mounted on the lower mounting portion (lower mounting portion comprising mirror array block 25; fig. 10-11) respectively, and the first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155]) and the second substrate (plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; [0153]) being disposed in parallel with each other (waveguide structure 24 comprises beam branching element holding structure 24a provided on mirror array block 25 and reflecting surface holding structure 24b installed on upper part of mirror array block 25; [0155], disposed in parallel; fig. 11);
a light condensing device (e.g., channels within holding structure 24a that beam branching elements 11 to 14 are fitted into, groove portions of V-grooves 19 to 23; [0153-157]) condensing the multiplexed light beam emitted (e.g., figs. 2 and 11) from the optical waveguide type multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]) to emit a condensed light beam (light emitting points include tip end surfaces of optical fibers and optical waveguides of fifth invention, e.g., tip end of beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0064]) along mount surfaces (mounting portions 24-1 to 24-4; [0154], plurality of V-grooves 19 to 23 for fixing optical fibers; [0153]) of the upper mounting portion (upper mounting portion comprising waveguide structure 24; fig. 11) and the lower mounting portion (lower mounting portion comprising mirror array block 25; fig. 10-11); and
a reflection member (reflecting surfaces 15 to 18; [0156]), provided over the optical scanning mirror device (mirror array block 25; [0153]), to which the condensed light beam enters (e.g., figs. 2 and 11; [0156-157]) and which reflects the condensed light beam (e.g., figs. 2 and 11) downward to the mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]), wherein
the movable mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]) reflects the condensed light beam (e.g., figs. 2 and 11), and
the optical waveguide type multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]), the light condensing device (e.g., channels within holding structure 24a that beam branching elements 11 to 14 are fitted into; [0153-157]) and the reflection member (reflecting surfaces 15 to 18; [0156]) are aligned at the height (fig. 11) of the multiplexed light beam and the condensed light beam (e.g., figs. 2 and 11).
Hadama does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the mirror is movable and is rotated for two-dimensionally scanning a reflected light beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Muto teaches a projector ([0001]), wherein a drive substrate 302 comprises a scanning mirror 301 (of MEMs mirror 300; [0044]) that rotates in two axial directions (vertical and horizontal directions; [0032-33]) and two dimensions ([0036]), a movable frame 302b, and a fixed frame 302c ([0031]), wherein the movable frame 302b is disposed within the fixed frame 302c ([0033]). Muto further teaches a holding plate 302a connected to the movable frame 302b by a pair of torsion bars 303d that extend in the vertical direction and movable frame 302b is connected to the fixed frame 302c by a pair of second torsion bars 302e that extend in the horizontal direction ([0032-33] and [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hadama to include the technical feature of rotating a mirror for two-dimensional scanning, for the purpose of projecting an image utilizing RGB light modulated in accordance with a video signal and improving image quality, as taught by Muto ([0044] and [0053]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a mirror to be movable and rotate, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952). See MPEP § 2144.
With respect to Claim 3, Hadama in view of Muto teaches the optical scanning type video projection device according to Claim 1 (fifth invention/embodiment; [0063-73] and [0152-159]; fig. 10-11; Hadama), wherein
the optical scanning mirror device (mirror array block 25; [0153]; Hadama) further has a rotation outer frame (movable frame 302b; [0031]; Muto) inside which the movable mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]; Hadama in view of rotating scanning mirror 301; [0031]; Muto) is provided in rotatable in a first rotation direction (vertical direction; [0032-33] and [0037]; Hadama), and
the rotation outer frame (movable frame 302b; [0031]; Muto) is provided inside the non-rotation outer frame (plurality of upwardly extending wall portions formed on substrate end portion and inclined surface 36a; [0154]; Hadama in view of fixed frame 302c; [0031]; Muto) in rotatable in a second rotation direction (horizontal direction; [0032-33] and [0037]; Hadama).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hadama to include the technical feature of rotating a mirror for two-dimensional scanning, for the purpose of projecting an image utilizing RGB light modulated in accordance with a video signal and improving image quality, as taught by Muto ([0044] and [0053]). See In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) and MPEP § 2144.
With respect to Claim 5, Hadama in view of Muto teaches the optical scanning type video projection device according to Claim 1 (fifth invention/embodiment; [0063-73] and [0152-159]; fig. 10-11; Hadama), wherein
the reflection member (reflecting surfaces 15 to 18; [0156]) is disposed at an opposite side (reflecting surfaces 15 to 18 formed on underside of ceiling at positions corresponding to beam branching elements 11 to 14 installed below ceiling; [0156]) to the light condensing device (e.g., channels within holding structure 24a that beam branching elements 11 to 14 are fitted into, groove portions of V-grooves 19 to 23; [0153-157]) with respect to the movable mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]; e.g., fig. 2; Hadama in view of rotating scanning mirror 301; [0031]; Muto),
the reflected light beam is reflected upward to a direction (e.g., figs. 2 and 11) of the light condensing device (e.g., channels within holding structure 24a that beam branching elements 11 to 14 are fitted into, groove portions of V-grooves 19 to 23; [0153-157]) with respect to the movable mirror (concave mirrors 6 to 10; [0154]; e.g., fig. 2; Hadama in view of rotating scanning mirror 301; [0031]; Muto).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hadama to include the technical feature of rotating a mirror for two-dimensional scanning, for the purpose of projecting an image utilizing RGB light modulated in accordance with a video signal and improving image quality, as taught by Muto ([0044] and [0053]). See In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) and MPEP § 2144.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadama et al. JP 2005274702 A (see machine translation; herein after "Hamada") in view of Muto et al. JP 2009237224 A (see machine translation; herein after "Muto") as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of another embodiment of Hamada.
With respect to Claim 4, Hadama in view of Muto teaches the optical scanning type video projection device according to Claim 1 (fifth invention/embodiment; [0063-73] and [0152-159]; fig. 10-11).
The fifth embodiment of Hadama in view of Muto does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the light condensing device includes a combination lens of a convex lens and a concave lens.
However, in another embodiment of Hamada (first invention/embodiment), Hamada further teaches specific examples of a reflective light-collecting element including a concave reflecting surface, a plano-convex lens having a reflecting surface formed on a planar surface, and a Fresnel mirror that applies the principles of a Fresnel lens ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the fifth embodiment of Hadama in view of Muto to include the technical feature of a reflective light-collecting element including a combination surface/lens comprising convex and concave optical components, for the purpose of significantly reducing propagation loss, loss of optical power, and manufacturing costs while also achieving a great degree of freedom in design selection and improving optical performance, as taught by Hamada ([0027-29]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hamano et al. US 20110128602 A1 discloses an optical scan unit, image projector, including the same, vehicle head-up display device, and mobile phone similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872