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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/29/2025. Claims 1 and 8-9 are amended and claims 1-6 and 8-15 are currently pending.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005069975 to Kamagami, et al. (hereinafter Kamagami).
Regarding claim 1, Kamagami discloses a light scanning device (Figs. 1-2 & 7) comprising: a light emitter (a light emitting unit 10, Figs. 1-2 & 7) configured to emit light; an optical scanner (structure related to function of polygon mirror 1, Figs. 1 & 7) configured to cause the light to scan; a light receiver (light receiving unit 20, Figs. 1 & 7) configured to receive returning light as scanning light from the optical scanner being reflected or scattered on an object (“the laser beam projected from the light emitting part 10 is reflected one of the mirror faces by a polygon mirror 1 arranged on the optical axis and rotation-driven to be emitted toward an object, and the laser beam reflected by the object is reflected by the mirror face different from the mirror face hereinbefore to be guided to the photoreception part 20”); and an optical scanning controller including processing circuitry configured to control the optical scanner (“a projection control unit 11 that controls the emission timing of the laser light projected from the light emitting unit 10 in synchronization with the rotation of the polygon mirror 1 that is rotationally driven by the driving unit 40”), wherein the optical scanner includes a rotating polyhedron (polygon mirror 1, Figs.1-2 & 7) configured to include a plurality of reflective surfaces, to cause the light to scan around a first axis (defined by the optical axis of reflected light from polygon mirror 1, Figs. 1-2 & 7) by reflecting the light on a reflective surface while rotating around the first axis, a supporter (“a U-shaped holding tool 31”, Figs, 1-2 & 7) configured to support the rotating polyhedron, and a rotating mechanism (“the swinging mechanism 35 includes a sub-scanning motor 3, a reduction gear 36 and an encoder 37 each having a hollow through hole in the direction of the rotation axis”, Figs. 1-2 & 7) configured to rotate the supporter around a second axis (rotation axis substantially coincides with the optical axis, Figs. 1, 2 & 7) to cause the light reflected on the reflective surface to scan around the second axis (Figs. 1-2 & 7), the first axis being provided at a position apart from the second axis in a direction that crosses both the first axis and the second axis (direction indicated by “d” in Fig. 2(a) crosses the polygonal mirror axis and the optical axis, Fig. 2 & 7).
Regarding claim 2, Kamagami discloses the optical scanning controller does not set a number of rotations per unit time of the rotating polyhedron as a control target (“polygon mirror 1 is rotationally driven at a predetermined rotational speed by the main scanning motor 2 controlled by the driving unit 40” and not controller 11).
Regarding claim 4, Kamagami discloses the scanning light reflected on one reflective surface from among the plurality of reflective surfaces included in the rotating polyhedron, is reflected or scattered on the object, and then, the light receiver receives the returning light reflected again on the one reflective surface (Figs. 1 & 7).
Regarding claim 6, Kamagami discloses the light emitted by the light emitter is incident on the reflective surface of the rotating polyhedron along the second axis (Figs. 1 & 7).
Regarding claim 8, Kamagami discloses the rotating polyhedron is a regular polygonal cylinder having the first axis as a central axis (Figs. 2 & 7), and wherein an inter-axes distance d to the position of the first axis apart from the second axis is less than or equal to a radius of an inscribed circle of a regular polygon of the regular polygonal cylinder (Fig. 2), and is subject to a condition expressed by a formula shown below
PNG
media_image1.png
40
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where θ represents an angle formed between an angular direction as a median value of a scanning angle range around the first axis by the rotating polyhedron (shown as “α”, Fig. 2), and the direction that crosses both the first axis and the second axis; and Q represents a radius of a circumscribed circle of the regular polygon. This is intrinsically taught by the configuration of Kamagami matching the claimed and disclosed apparatus configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Kamagami discloses a position of the rotating polyhedron is variable within a range of the inter-axes distance d along the direction that crosses crossing both the first axis and the second axis (due to rotation, Fig. 2 & 7).
Regarding claim 10, Kamagami discloses a rotation driver (driver 40, Fig. 1 & 7) configured to rotate the rotating polyhedron, is provided in the rotating mechanism.
Regarding claim 12, Kamagami discloses a detector configured to detect a rotation angle of the rotating polyhedron; and a synchronous outputter configured to output a synchronization signal synchronized with rotation of the rotating polyhedron, based on the rotation angle, wherein the optical scanning controller controls the rotation by the rotating mechanism, based on the synchronization signal (“control signal output by a projection control part 11 for controlling the projection of the laser beam from the light emitting part 10 synchronized with rotation of the polygon mirror 1, and based on propagation lag time with respect to a photoreception signal photoreceived by the photoreception part 20”).
Regarding claim 13, Kamagami discloses the optical scanning controller (“polygon mirror 1 is rotationally driven at a predetermined rotational speed by the main scanning motor 2 controlled by the driving unit 40” and not controller 11) controls a number of rotations per unit time of the rotating mechanism so that a predetermined ratio to the number of rotations per unit time of the rotating polyhedron is obtained.
Regarding claim 15, Kamagami discloses a distance measuring device comprising: the light scanning device as claimed in claim 1 (Abstract); and an outputter configured to output information on a distance to the object (“distance calculation unit 50 for calculating the distance from the object to the object is provided”), obtained based on the returning light as the scanning light from the light scanning device being reflected or scattered on the object.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamagami, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of JP 2011180103 to Takaoka et al. (hereinafter Takaoka).
Regarding claim 3, Kamagami discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a base and a holder.
Takaoka discloses a base (structure of optical unit 20, Fig. 6, 13-14); and a holder (a laser light receiving and emitting section 2 for receiving and emitting laser light, Figs. 1 & 7) configured to hold the light emitter and the light receiver, wherein the holder and the rotating mechanism are provided in different areas on the base (Figs. 1-3. 6. 13-14).
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 base and holder as taught by Takaoka with the system as disclosed by Kamagami. The motivation would have been to mount electronics and optical components in a fixed relationship.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamagami, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of EP 3447524 to Shin et al. (hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claim 5, Kamagami discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a light deflector configured to deflect the returning light, wherein the light deflector includes an opening portion through which light emitted by the light emitter passes.
Shin discloses a light deflector configured to deflect the returning light (“light gathered in the first mirror 123 moves to the reflector 124. The reflector 124 is located at a focal point by the curved surface of the first mirror 123. The reflector 124 receives light reflected from the first mirror 123 and reflects the light to the photo diode 122”, Fig. 13), wherein the light deflector includes an opening portion through which light emitted by the light emitter passes (“Light emitted from the light source 112 passes a hole of the first mirror 123 to move to the second mirror 140 along a straight path”, Fig. 13).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed deflector as taught by Shin with the system as disclosed by Kamagami. The motivation would have been to provide a compact form factor in which optical paths overlap.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamagami, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of JP 2003287693 to Maeda (hereinafter Maeda).
Regarding claim 11, Kamagami discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a power feeder configured to feed power by electromagnetic induction to the rotation driver without contact or with a rotating contact
Maeda discloses a power feeder configured to feed power by electromagnetic induction to the rotation driver without contact or with a rotating contact (“When the coil 60 of the electromagnet 6 is energized, the magnetic force exerted by the magnetic poles 62, 62 on the driven portion 2 behind the mirror 1 causes the mirror 1 to swing about the rotation axis 3 in the direction of increasing the swing angle θ. Move. In the figure, 30 is an encoder for detecting the swing angle θ of the mirror 3 around the rotary shaft 3, 40 is a drive circuit for the rotary motor 4, 66 is a drive circuit for the electromagnet 6, and 8 is a drive circuit”, Fig. 1).
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 power feeder to feed electromagnetic induction as taught by Maeda with the system as disclosed by Kamagami. The motivation would have been to balance the center of mass for rotation (“the angle of inclination of the mirror 1 when the mirror 1 is rotating is at a position where the gravity and centrifugal force acting on the mirror 1 and the magnetic force exerted by the electromagnet 6 on the driven portion 2 of the mirror 1 are balanced”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamagami, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 20140293263 to Justice et al. (hereinafter Justice).
Regarding claim 14, Kamagami discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a rotation speed.
Justice discloses a quotient obtained by dividing a product of a number of rotations per unit time of the rotating polyhedron and a number of faces of the reflective surfaces included in the rotating polyhedron (“five-facet mirror configuration of FIG. 1 reduces the motor speed to about 2742 rpm”; [0062]), by a number of rotations per unit time of the rotating mechanism (“Rotation table 50 of the illustrated embodiment rotates at approximately 326 rpm”; [0063]) takes a non-integer value.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed rotation speed as taught by Shin with the system as disclosed by Kamagami. The claimed rotation speed relative to the reflection faces would amount to routing experimentation and optimization of the speed would provide predictable results with the apparatus. Further, the motivation would have been to provide a thorough scan of scenery in vehicle applications ([0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 1-2 of 5/29/2025 Remarks, with respect to Claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Kamagami does not disclose a first axis provided at a position apart from the second axis in a direction that crosses both axes. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Kamagami details the optical relationship between elements in Figs. 2-3 and explicitly discloses an offset between the optical axis of emitter and the rotational axis of the polygonal mirror. That optical set-up is provided in various embodiments capable of rotating the polygonal mirror in a substantially orthogonal plane, including Fig. 7 in which the rotation axis of the support structure and the optical axis coincide. This embodiment necessarily provides first axis at a position apart from the second axis in a direction that crosses both axes.
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