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
The amendment filed 05/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 8 has been amended; and no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach all of the amended limitations in the claim, the examiner is not persuaded. In particular, the applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the first driving signal waveforms V1a(t) and V1b(t), and the second driving signal includes driving waveforms v2a(t) and V2b(t). Additionally, wherein the amplitude and phase of the first and second driving signals are also represented by third degree polynomials.
The examiner notes that the driving voltage waveforms describe steady-state displacements, (see NPL “Influence of the Driving Waveform on the Open-Loop Frequency Response of MEMs Resonators with Nonlinear Actuation Schemes” by Brenes et al., equation 4). The prior art Pinter, discloses that it operates in a spiral (([0063] last three sentences; the motion induced in the device includes amplitude and rotation which is capable of performing a spiral motion), which inherently describes a steady-state displacement, and the third-degree polynomials for the phase and amplitude. Therefore, Pinter inherently discloses the driving signal waveforms in the amended claims.
Additional Response to Arguments1
Pinter anticipates the optical scanning device that operates in a spiral. The equations for V1A(t), V1B(t), V2A(t) & V2B(t) are mathematical descriptions of the driving waveforms used to have the scanner preform a spiral rotation operation. Said equations describe steady-state displacement (as evidenced by equation 4 in npl Brenes et al., of record) with different phase delays – as would necessarily flow from a MEMS operating in a spiral, see MPEP 2112. There is no limitation on these waveform equations, per se, and the frequency (i.e. fd), the coefficients (e.g. m3a, m2a, etc.) and/or the phase (e.g. γ, ϕ) could be set to any value, as long as the scanner preforms the required spiral rotation operation. For example, in applicant’s agenda for the interview of November 5, 2025 on page 4 applicant notes “a spiral trajectory can, in principle, be produced by an amplitude ramp alone (i.e., a time-dependent linear change in amplitude only).” Assuming applicant means a monotonic linear ramp, one could mathematically describe such an amplitude by setting coefficients for the squared term and the cubed term to zero. For the equations to further limit the invention applicant would need to limit the values of the frequency, the coefficients and the phase. In arguendo, if such limitations were incorporated it would be obvious, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinter (US Patent Publication 20120250128).
Regarding claim 1: Pinter anticipates (figs. 2A, 2B, 3 and 4) an optical scanning device comprising: a mirror device that has a mirror portion (mirror surface (24)), which is swingable around a first axis (joining axis 22) and a second axis orthogonal to each other (axis (52)), having a reflecting surface reflecting incident light (mirror surface 24 reflects light [0056]); a first actuator causing the mirror portion to swing around the first axis ( fig. 4 actuators 70 or 72 [0061]), and a second actuator causing the mirror portion to swing around the second axis (fig. 4 actuators 70 or 72 [0061]); and a processor (control device 80) that provides a first driving signal to the first actuator and provides a second driving signal to the second actuator (control device sends and receives signals [0063]), wherein the processor, with the first driving signal and the second driving signal each as cyclic voltage signals whose amplitudes and phases change with time (periodic voltage signals [0063] near the bottom of the paragraph), causes the mirror portion to perform a spiral rotation operation including a period in which a swing amplitude around the first axis and a swing amplitude around the second axis change linearly ([0063] last three sentences; the motion induced in the device includes amplitude and rotation which is capable of performing a spiral motion), Pinter discloses that it operates in a spiral (([0063] last three sentences; the motion induced in the device includes amplitude and rotation which is capable of performing a spiral motion), which inherently describes a steady-state displacement for the first and second driving signal waveforms, and the third-degree polynomials for the phase and amplitude.
For clarity, while Pinter does not explicitly discuss “the first driving signal includes the driving voltage waveforms V1A(t) and V1B(t)represented by the equations:
V
1
A
t
=
A
1
t
s
i
n
(
2
π
f
d
t
+
γ
1
t
)
and
V
1
B
t
=
A
1
t
s
i
n
(
2
π
f
d
t
+
γ
1
t
+
π
)
, wherein the second driving signal includes the driving voltage waveforms V2A(t) and V2B(t) represented by the equations:
V
2
A
t
=
A
2
t
s
i
n
(
2
π
f
d
t
+
γ
2
t
+
φ
)
and
V
2
B
t
=
A
2
t
s
i
n
(
2
π
f
d
t
+
γ
2
t
+
φ
+
π
)
, wherein t is time, fd is a driving frequency and j is a phase difference between the driving voltage waveforms V1A(t) and V1B(t) and the driving voltage waveforms V2A(t) and V2B(t), wherein the amplitude A1(t) and phase g1(t) of the first driving signal are represented by polynomials of at least three degrees indicated by the equations:A1(t) =m3at3 + m2atz + m1at + m0a and g1(t) = n3at3 + n2at2 + n1at + n0a, wherein the amplitude A2(t) and phase g2(t) of the second driving signal are represented by polynomials of at least three degrees indicated by the equations:A2(t)= m3bt3 + m2bt2 + m1bt + m0b and g2(t)+j=n3bt3 + n2bt2 + n1bt + n0b, wherein mkp and nkp are coefficients, wherein k is 0, 1, 2 or 3 and p is a or b” as recited in claim 1. However, these equations are mathematical descriptions of the driving waveforms used to have the scanner preform a spiral rotation operation. Said equations describe steady-state displacement with different phase delays – as would necessarily flow from a MEMS operating in a spiral, see MPEP 2112. Since there is no further limitation in said equations/mathematical descriptions, per se, and the frequency (i.e. fd), the coefficients (e.g. m3a, m2a, etc.) and/or the phase (e.g. g, j) could be set to any value, as long as the scanner preforms the required spiral rotation operation, as anticipated by Pinter. Thus, the waveforms mathematical described by the recited equations could inherently be used to describe the waveforms applied to the claimed structure anticipated by Pinter preforming the claimed functions anticipated by Pinter, see response and additional responses above.
Regarding claim 2: Pinter anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Pinter further anticipates wherein a frequency of the cyclic voltage signal is a frequency near a resonance frequency (may be adjusted to a desired value [0057]) around the first axis and a resonance frequency around the second axis (set to resonance [0057]).
Regarding claim 3: Pinter anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 2, as set forth above. Pinter further anticipates wherein the resonance frequency around the first axis is different than the resonance frequency around the second axis (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 4: Pinter anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 2, as set forth above. Pinter further anticipates wherein the cyclic voltage signal is different from at least one of the resonance frequency around the first axis or the resonance frequency around the second axis (para. [0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinter (US Patent Publication 20120250128).
Regarding claim 5: Pinter teaches the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Pinter does not disclose wherein the period, an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the first axis and an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the second axis are each 0.5 rad/s or more. Pinter teaches wherein the swing amplitude and change speed may vary or be changed (see paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the change speed of the swing amplitude be 0.5 rad/s or more for the purposes of achieving a certain scanning frequency and/or scanning pattern. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein in the period, an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the first axis and an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the second axis are each 0.5 rad/s or more, since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of the claim are taught, finding the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6: Pinter teaches the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Pinter does not disclose wherein the period, an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the first axis and an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the second axis are each 1.0 rad/s or more. However, Pinter teaches wherein the swing amplitude and change speed may vary or be changed (see paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the change speed of the swing amplitude be 1.0 rad/s or more for the purposes of achieving a certain scanning frequency and/or scanning pattern. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein in the period, an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the first axis and an absolute value of a change speed of the swing amplitude around the second axis are each 1.0 rad/s or more, since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of the claim are taught, finding the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinter (US Patent Publication 20120250128) in view of Wood (US Patent Publication 20180132782).
Regarding claim 7: Pinter teaches the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Pinter does not teach wherein the period includes an expansion period in which the swing amplitude around the first axis and the swing amplitude around the second axis increase linearly and a contraction period in which the swing amplitude around the first axis and the swing amplitude around the second axis decrease linearly.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wood teaches (see figures 1N, 1P) wherein the frequency of the waveform may expand and contract (see figs. 1N and 1P), which results in a circular/spiral scanning pattern (see fig. Q). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the scanning device, according to Pinter, the frequencies of the mirror to have an expansion period in which the swing amplitude around the first axis and the swing amplitude around the second axis increase linearly and a contraction period in which the swing amplitude around the first axis and the swing amplitude around the second axis decrease linearly, for the purposes of creating a scanner with a preferred performance/scanning pattern (Wood [0090]).
Regarding claim 8: Pinter teaches figs. 2A, 2B, 3 and 4) a control method [0063] of an optical scanning device comprising: a mirror device that has a mirror portion (mirror surface (24)), which is swingable around a first axis (joining axis 22) and a second axis orthogonal to each other (axis (52)), having a reflecting surface reflecting incident light (mirror surface 24 reflects light [0056]); a first actuator causing the mirror portion to swing around the first axis ( fig. 4 actuators 70 or 72 [0061]), and a second actuator causing the mirror portion to swing around the second axis (fig. 4 actuators 70 or 72 [0061]); and a processor (control device 80) that provides a first driving signal to the first actuator and provides a second driving signal to the second actuator (control device sends and receives signals [0063]), wherein the processor, with the first driving signal and the second driving signal each as cyclic voltage signals whose amplitudes and phases change with time (periodic voltage signals [0063] near the bottom of the paragraph); Pinter discloses that it operates in a spiral (([0063] last three sentences; the motion induced in the device includes amplitude and rotation which is capable of performing a spiral motion), which inherently describes a steady-state displacement first and second diving signal waveforms, and the third-degree polynomials for the phase and amplitude.
Pinter does not teach wherein the method includes a signal that causes the mirror portion to perform a spiral rotation operation including a period in which a swing amplitude around the first axis and a swing amplitude around the second axis change linearly.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wood teaches the use of a method and signals (i.e. the electrical waveforms) to control the operation of a scanning device (paragraph [0091]), which results in a spiral rotation operation (see fig. 1Q) including a period in which a swing amplitude around the first axis and a swing amplitude around the second axis change linearly (fig. 1M, 1N and 1P). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical scanning device, taught by Pinter, to includes signals to allow the device to perform a spiral rotation operation, taught by Wood, for the purposes of improving efficiency and to obtain a specific scanning pattern (Wood [0091]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICKY MACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2333. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (6:30-4:00).
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, Allana Lewin Bidder can be reached at 5712725560. 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.
RICKY MACK
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Response to applicant’s 12/3/25 telephone discussion regarding advisory action with the same rejection that appeared to be overcome in 11/5/25 interview.