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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3-8 and 10-11 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. The specific limitation “the housing of the optical scanning device is not fixed by a fixing member” appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure how a housing of any device is not fixed by a fixing member. Appropriate correction is required.
Being dependent on claim 1, claims 3-8 and 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 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, 3-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2006/0092256) in view of Matsuo et al. (US 2021/0173202).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano (figures 1-14) discloses an image-forming apparatus having an optical scanning device attached to an image-forming apparatus body such that the optical scanning device is adjustable by turn around a turn axis line that is parallel to an axis line orthogonal to a main scanning direction of a light beam on a deflecting-and-scanning surface of the light beam,
the optical scanning device includes a turn shaft (148) that is fixed on a bottom of a housing (133; figure 10) of the optical scanning device, and that turns, together with the optical scanning device, around the turn axis line as a center (in a state in which the shaft portion 148 is inserted in the shaft hole 146, the knob member 141 and the cam member 142 are integrally rotatable; see at least paragraph 0064),
wherein the image-forming apparatus body includes a shaft support (137; figure 12) that supports the turn shaft on the bottom of the housing in a turn available manner around the turn axis line and a holder (133, or 142) that faces an upper surface of the housing of the optical scanning device (upper portion of the image forming device 1 as shown in figure1) from a position different from the shaft support, and
the optical scanning device is held by the image-forming apparatus body,
the housing of the optical scanning device is not fixed by a fixing member (133; figure 10), and
the bottom of the housing is supported by the shaft support via the turn shaft (figure 12).
Nakano discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Nakano is silent regarding the optical scanning device is held by the image-forming apparatus body in a state in which an elastic member is sandwiched between the housing and the holder in a pressed manner and the upper surface of the housing is held in a manner of being pressed against the elastic member. Matsuo et al. (figures 1-12) teaches the optical scanning device is held by the image-forming apparatus body in a state in which an elastic member (255; see at least paragraph 0072) is sandwiched between the housing and the holder (250 and 251; see at least paragraph 0073) in a pressed manner and the upper surface of the housing is held in a manner of being pressed against the elastic member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elastic member as taught by Matsuo in order to absorb vibration generated by high-speed rotation of the scanner. Therefore, a decrease in image quality can be prevented.
The limitation, “an image-forming apparatus having an optical scanning device attached to an image-forming apparatus body such that the optical scanning device is adjustable by turn around a turn axis line that is parallel to an axis line orthogonal to a main scanning direction of a light beam on a deflecting-and-scanning surface of the light beam; that turns, together with the optical scanning device, around the turn axis line as a center; the bottom of the housing is supported by the shaft support via the turn shaft” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Kubo discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 3, Nakano (figures 1-14) discloses wherein the holder is disposed, on an opposite side of the bottom of the housing, in the image-forming apparatus body such that the holder is positioned on opposite sides in the main scanning direction with the turn axis line interposed between the opposite sides in a plan view (133, or 142).
Regarding claim 4, Nakano (figures 1-14) discloses wherein the holder is disposed, on an opposite side of the bottom of the housing, in the image-forming apparatus body such that the holder is positioned on an imaginary plumb line that passes the turn axis line in a plan view.
The limitation, “such that the holder is positioned on an imaginary plumb line that passes the turn axis line in a plan view” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Nakano discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 5, Nakano (figures 1-14) discloses wherein the housing has an opening through which the light beam passes (40; figure 2), and the holder is disposed on the image-forming apparatus body such that the holder is positioned, in the opening, on an opposite side of the bottom of the housing.
Regarding claim 6, Nakano (figures 1-14) discloses wherein the housing has a beam extending in the main scanning direction, and the holder is disposed on the image-forming apparatus body such that the holder is positioned, on the beam, on an opposite side of the bottom of the housing (40; figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakano (figures 1-14) discloses wherein slits extending in the main scanning direction are disposed in positions corresponding to the holder on the beam (40; figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuo et al. (figures 1-12) teaches wherein the elastic member is disposed between the upper surface of the housing of the optical scanning device and a lower surface of the holder of the image-forming apparatus body (255; see at least paragraph 0072; and 250 and 251; see at least paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuo et al. (figures 1-12) teaches wherein the holder has a base extending downward from a bottom surface of a ceiling plate in the image-forming apparatus body, and an extended section extending from a lower portion of the base to the housing of the optical scanning device (255; see at least paragraph 0072; and 250 and 251; see at least paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuo et al. (figures 1-12) teaches wherein the elastic member is disposed in a position, in the housing, that is not fixed by the fixing member on the image-forming apparatus body (255; see at least paragraph 0072; and 250 and 251; see at least paragraph 0073).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871