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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this limitation is directed to an integrated optical module structure…planar first substrate and constitute the optical multiplexing unit," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "an integrated optical module structure") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Hadama discloses an optical scanning 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 planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]), wherein a plurality of light source elements (light-emitting means arranged in an array are laser diodes of fifth; [0073]) and an optical 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 planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]), pattern layers (beam branching elements for use in fixed wavelength range include bandpass filters and edge filters that use dielectric multilayer films, and resonant mode filters that have fine grating structure on order of wavelength periodically formed on surface; [0021]) of the plurality of optical waveguide (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) are formed on the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]), the pattern layers (beam branching elements for use in fixed wavelength range include bandpass filters and edge filters that use dielectric multilayer films, and resonant mode filters that have fine grating structure on order of wavelength periodically formed on surface; [0021]) of the plurality of optical waveguide (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) constitutes the optical multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; fig. 11). Examiner reminds the applicant that it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, Examiner submits that Hadama discloses several planar, plate-like, and flat substrates and surfaces that do not affect the optical device functioning as an optical multiplexer/demultiplexer. ([0020-24], [0134], [0154-156]). See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The structural difference is fundamental. Modifying Hadama or Muto to include the claimed structure would require more than merely combining known components. The proposed combination would not result in the claimed structure and arrangement," the Examiner traverses. Counsel's assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence (e.g., how the proposed combination would not result in the claimed structure and arrangement, evidence of such combination requiring more than merely combining known components, etc.) to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). See MPEP § 2145. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “In many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP § 2141.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Furthermore, Hadama and Muto disclose optical arrangements using discrete optical components. They do not teach or suggest the claimed horizontal arrangement of those elements on the planar first substrate and the mounting substrate," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, Hadama discloses the optical multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; fig. 11) 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) horizontally (optical axis of light beam, propagating light beam coupled to optical fiber; [0041]; horizontally as seen in fig. 4) along a main surface (as seen in figs. 3-4, 11) of the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]). See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Hadama does not disclose this structure. Hadama uses optical fibers 1-5, reflecting surfaces 15-18, and concave mirrors 6-10 as discrete optical components. Muto also does not cure…the planar first substrate, the optical multiplexer, and the horizontal light path," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See § 103 rejection(s) below and previous response to arguments above in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Claim 1 recites, "a main surface of the movable mirror is in parallel with a main surface of the second substrate in a non-operation state;". The feature enables the height of the optical scanning video projection device to be lower. In contrast, in Hadama, the main surface of the mirror array block 25 and the main surface of the concave mirror 6 are not in parallel. See Figs 5 and 10," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that figures 5 and 10 are not relied upon for this teaching, for Hadama discloses 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). Furthermore, and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "The feature enables the height of the optical scanning video projection device to be lower") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See § 103 rejection(s) below and previous response to arguments above in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Further, Muto discloses the scanning mirror 301 that is arranged vertically. See Fig. 1. Therefore, Muto's scanning mirror 301 does not satisfy the above feature of Claim 1," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner reminds the applicant that Hadama discloses the recited limitation. See § 103 rejection(s) below and previous response to arguments above in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "During the interview, the Examiner indicated that the limitations of claim 4 may be considered for incorporation into independent claim 1 as a possible further distinction. Applicant believes that the above amendments already distinguish the claimed invention over Hadama and Muto. However, to further clarify the claimed structure and to provide an additional distinction over the cited references, the limitations of claim 4 have also been incorporated into independent claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 1 is now rejected over Hadama in view of another embodiment of Hadama and Muto, necessitated by applicant’s amendment. Examiner suggests amending the novelty mentioned in the as-filed specification into Claim 1 to further distinguish the instant application from the current prior art of record.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Therefore, the multiplexed light beam is not emitted horizontally. Since Hadama emits the multiplexed light beam vertically, the height cannot be reduced," the Examiner traverses. Counsel's assertion that "Hadama emits the multiplexed light beam vertically, the height cannot be reduced" is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Hadama discloses the optical multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; fig. 11) 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) horizontally (optical axis of light beam, propagating light beam coupled to optical fiber; [0041]; horizontally as seen in fig. 4) along a main surface (as seen in figs. 3-4, 11) of the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]). See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "However, the reflective condensing elements include concave reflective surfaces, reflective surfaces formed on the flat side of a pIano-convex lens, Fresnel lenses, and Fresnel mirrors in paragraph 0024, are different from the combination lens of a convex lens and a concave lens recited in Claim 4, now moved in Claim 1. The light-condensing device including a combination of a convex lens and a concave lens is a lens that condenses incident multiplexed light beam and transmits the condensed multiplexed light beam. This differs from the reflective light-condensing element described in paragraph 0024 of Hadama," the Examiner traverses. An optical configuration comprising a plano-convex lens and Fresnel lens satisfies the required convex lens component while the concave reflective surface and Fresnel lens satisfies the optical function associated with a concave lens since these are converging optical elements when utilized reflectively. Thus, the disclosed arrangement of Hamada combines convex refractive optics and concave reflective optics in order to condense light ([0020-24]). Examiner also reminds the applicant that “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2144.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Furthermore, paragraphs 0029-0031 of Hadama state that reflective light condensing elements…no incentive to use "a light condensing device including the combination of a convex lens and a concave lens" of Claim 4," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Examiner also submits that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, 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 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]). See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In contrast, in Hadama, the multiplexed light beam and the condensed light beam are emitted in the vertical direction Therefore, the optical multiplexer, the light condensing device, and the reflection member are not aligned at the height of the multiplexed light beam and the condensed light beams emitted in the horizontal direction. Consequently, the height cannot be reduced in Hadama," the Examiner traverses. Counsel's assertion that "the height cannot be reduced" is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Hadama discloses the optical multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; fig. 11) 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) horizontally (optical axis of light beam, propagating light beam coupled to optical fiber; [0041]; horizontally as seen in fig. 4) along a main surface (as seen in figs. 3-4, 11) of the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]). See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The applicant' s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 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 another embodiment of Hamada and Muto et al. JP 2009237224 A (see machine translation; herein after "Muto").
With respect to Claim 1, Hadama discloses an optical scanning 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 planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]), wherein a plurality of light source elements (light-emitting means arranged in an array are laser diodes of fifth; [0073]) and an optical 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 planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]), pattern layers (beam branching elements for use in fixed wavelength range include bandpass filters and edge filters that use dielectric multilayer films, and resonant mode filters that have fine grating structure on order of wavelength periodically formed on surface; [0021]) of the plurality of optical waveguide (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) are formed on the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]), the pattern layers (beam branching elements for use in fixed wavelength range include bandpass filters and edge filters that use dielectric multilayer films, and resonant mode filters that have fine grating structure on order of wavelength periodically formed on surface; [0021]) of the plurality of optical waveguide (beam branching elements 11 to 14; [0156], optical waveguides of fifth invention; [0063-64]) constitutes the optical multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; 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 multiplexing unit (optical multiplexer/demultiplexer; [0155]; fig. 11) 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) horizontally (optical axis of light beam, propagating light beam coupled to optical fiber; [0041]; horizontally as seen in fig. 4) along a main surface (as seen in figs. 3-4, 11) of the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]);
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) with a flat mounting surface (upper surfaces of side walls on both sides of each concave mirror 6 to 10 are mounting portions 24-1 to 24-4; [0154]) and a lower mounting portion (lower mounting portion comprising mirror array block 25; fig. 10-11) with a flat mounting surface (bottom flat portion comprising plurality of V-grooves 19 to 23, mirror array block 25, and plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; as seen in fig. 11) having a step (flat top portion of inclined surface 36a; [0154]; fig. 10) therebetween, the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]) being mounted on the flat mounting surface (upper surfaces of side walls on both sides of each concave mirror 6 to 10 are mounting portions 24-1 to 24-4; [0154]) of 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 flat mounting surface (bottom flat portion comprising plurality of V-grooves 19 to 23, mirror array block 25, and plate-like substrate where V-groove 36 is formed; as seen in fig. 11) of the lower mounting portion (lower mounting portion comprising mirror array block 25; fig. 10-11) respectively, and the planar first substrate (holding structures 24a, 24b; [0154-155], waveguide structure 24 is a planar U-shaped structure made up of walls extending; [0134]) 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]), the multiplexed light beam emitted (e.g., figs. 2 and 11) from the optical multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]) to emit a condensed multiplexed light beam (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) horizontally (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], optical axis of light beam, propagating light beam coupled to optical fiber; [0041]; horizontally as seen in fig. 4) along the flat mounting surface (upper surfaces of side walls on both sides of each concave mirror 6 to 10 are mounting portions 24-1 to 24-4; [0154]) of the upper mounting portion (upper mounting portion comprising waveguide structure 24; fig. 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 multiplexed (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) light beam enters (e.g., figs. 2 and 11; [0156-157]) and which reflects the condensed multiplexed (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) 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 multiplexed (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) light beam (e.g., figs. 2 and 11), and
the optical 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 multiplexed (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) light beam (e.g., figs. 2 and 11).
The fifth embodiment of Hadama does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the light condensing device includes a combination lens of a convex lens and a concave lens that receives and condenses the multiplexed light beam (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) emitted from the optical multiplexer (waveguide structure 24; [0154]).
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 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]).
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 that is the condensed multiplexed light beam (function of combining a plurality of beams into one wavelength-multiplexed beam, function of branching one wavelength-multiplexed beam into plurality of beams; [0020]) reflected by the movable mirror.
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 5, Hadama in view of Muto teaches the optical scanning 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.
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 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 25 August 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights