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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/177,900 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a pair of first support portions that are connected to the mirror portion on a first axis located in a plane including the reflecting surface of the mirror portion in a stationary state, and that swingably support the mirror portion around the first axis; a pair of movable frames that are connected to the first support portion and face each other across the first axis; a pair of second support portions that are connected to the movable frame on a second axis which is located in the plane and is orthogonal to the first axis, and that swingably support the mirror portion, the first support portion, and the movable frame around the second axis” renders claims 1-8 and 10-17 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1- 6 of copending Application No. 18/177,900 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori et al (US 2018/0176524) in view of Ono et al. (US 2018/0188212), and further in view of Morikawa et al. (US 2018/0065149).
Regarding claim 1, Kobori discloses, an optical scanning device (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a mirror portion (15) having a reflecting surface for reflecting incident light (Para. 0017 and see 13);
a first actuator (Para. 0018 and see “Hdrive”) that allows the mirror portion to swing around a first axis located in a plane including the reflecting surface of the mirror portion in a stationary state (Para. 0018; discloses horizontal scanning);
a second actuator (Para. 0018 and see “Vdrive”) that allows the mirror portion to swing around a second axis which is located in the plane including the reflecting surface of the mirror portion in the stationary state and is orthogonal to the first axis (Para. 0018; discloses vertical);
a pair of first angle detection sensors (21h, 21v) respectively output signals forming a pair of first output signals (Para. 0019) corresponding to an angle of the mirror portion around the first axis (Para. 0025); and
at least one processor (6),
wherein the processor generates a first angle detection signal representing the angle of the mirror portion around the first axis (Para. 0025) by adjusting an amplitude level of at least one of the pair of first output signals to so that amplitudes of vibration noises (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034; discloses a correction amplitude amount (ah) that is added to the amplitude detected (Hamp’) to obtain a compensated amplitude (Hamp)) respectively included in the pair of first output signals output from the pair of first angle detection sensors with each other (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034), and by mutually adding or subtracting signals forming the adjusted pair of first output signals (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034; discloses calculating and adjusting the signals to remove/cancel out noise).
Kobori does not disclose explicitly disclose the noises are vibration noises.
Ono teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the noises are vibration noises (Para. 0166 and 0197).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the noises are vibration noises as taught by the optical scanning device of Ono in the optical scanning device of Kobori since Ono teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an effective optical scanning device with reduced noises.
Kobori in view of Ono does not explicitly disclose the pair of first angle detection sensors being disposed on opposite sides of the first axis or the second axis facing each other.
Morikawa teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the pair of first angle detection sensors being disposed on opposite sides of the first axis or the second axis facing each other (Para. 0053, 0067 and see 17b, c of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pair of first angle detection sensors being disposed on opposite sides of the first axis or the second axis facing each other as taught by the optical scanning device of Morikawa in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Morikawa teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an optical scanning device with improved accuracy that effectively removes unnecessary vibrations.
Regarding claim 2, Kobori, Ono and Morikawa discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the processor generates the first angle detection signal by mutually subtracting the signals forming the adjusted pair of first output signals (Para. 0032 and see 37h, 37v of Fig. 4; note, discloses adding or subtracting signals).
Furthermore, Morikawa teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the pair of first angle detection sensors are disposed on opposite sides the first axis facing each other (Para. 0053, 0067 and see 17b, c of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical scanning device of Morikawa in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Morikawa teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an optical scanning device with improved accuracy that effectively removes unnecessary vibrations.
Regarding claim 3, Kobori, Ono and Morikawa discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the processor generates the first angle detection signal by mutually adding the signals forming the adjusted pair of first output signals (Para. 0032 and see 37h, 37v of Fig. 4; note, discloses adding or subtracting signals).
Furthermore, Morikawa teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the pair of first angle detection sensors are disposed on opposite sides the first axis facing each other (Para. 0053, 0067 and see 17b, c of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical scanning device of Morikawa in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Morikawa teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an optical scanning device with improved accuracy that effectively removes unnecessary vibrations.
Regarding claim 4, Kobori, Ono and Morikawa discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the processor includes a first driving signal generator that generates a first driving signal applied to the first actuator (Para. 0018 and see “Hdrive”, “Vdrive”), and feeds back the first angle detection signal to the first driving signal generator (Para. 0025; note, discloses the computer feeds back the actual rotation state of the mirror and corrects the driving information to be transmitted to the mirror driving unit).
Regarding claim 5, Kobori, Ono and Morikawa discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the first driving signal generator is a drive circuit having a phase synchronization circuit (see 35h, 35v).
Regarding claim 6, Kobori, Ono and Morikawa discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the first driving signal is a sinusoidal wave (Para. 0035-0038 and see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kobori, Ono and Morikawa discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Ono further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the first angle detection sensor is a piezoelectric element (Para. 0160 and see 100A of Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical scanning device of Ono in the optical scanning device of Kobori since Ono teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an effective optical scanning device with reduced noises.
Regarding claim 17, a method of driving an optical scanning device (Figs. 1-4) including a mirror portion (15) having a reflecting surface for reflecting incident light (Para. 0017 and see 13), a first actuator (Para. 0018 and see “Hdrive”) that allows the mirror portion to swing around a first axis located in a plane including the reflecting surface of the mirror portion in a stationary state (Para. 0018; discloses horizontal scanning), a second actuator (Para. 0018 and see “Vdrive”) that allows the mirror portion to swing around a second axis which is located in the plane including the reflecting surface of the mirror portion in the stationary state and is orthogonal to the first axis (Para. 0018; discloses vertical), and
a pair of first angle detection sensors (21h, 21v) that respectively output signals forming a pair of first output signals corresponding to an angle of the mirror portion around the first axis (Para. 0025), the method comprising:
generating a first angle detection signal representing the angle of the mirror portion around the first axis (Para. 0025) by adjusting an amplitude level of at least one of the pair of first output signals so that amplitudes of noises (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034; discloses a correction amplitude amount (ah) that is added to the amplitude detected (Hamp’) to obtain a compensated amplitude (Hamp)) respectively included in the pair of first output signals output from the pair of first angle detection sensors with each other (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034), and by mutually adding or subtracting signals forming the adjusted pair of first output signals (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034; discloses calculating and adjusting the signals to remove/cancel out noise).
Kobori does not disclose explicitly disclose the noises are vibration noises.
Ono teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the noises are vibration noises (Para. 0166 and 0197).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the noises are vibration noises as taught by the optical scanning device of Ono in the optical scanning device of Kobori since Ono teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an effective optical scanning device with reduced noises.
Kobori in view of Ono does not explicitly disclose the pair of first angle detection sensors being disposed on opposite sides of the first axis or the second axis facing each other.
Morikawa teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method of driving an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the pair of first angle detection sensors being disposed on opposite sides of the first axis or the second axis facing each other (Para. 0053, 0067 and see 17b, c of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pair of first angle detection sensors being disposed on opposite sides of the first axis or the second axis facing each other as taught by the method of driving optical scanning device of Morikawa in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Morikawa teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing a method of driving an optical scanning device with improved accuracy that effectively removes unnecessary vibrations.
Claims 8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobori et al (US 2018/0176524) in view of Ono et al. (US 2018/0188212) in view of Morikawa et al. (US 2018/0065149) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeanroy (US 2014/0299947).
Kobori in view of Ono remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Kobori discloses, a second angle detection sensor (21h, v) that respectively output signals forming pair of second output signals corresponding to an angle of the mirror portion around the second axis (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034), wherein the processor generates a second angle detection signal representing the angle of the mirror portion around the second axis by adjusting an amplitude level of at least one of a pair of second output signals so that amplitudes of vibration noises respectively included in the pair of second output signals output from the pair of second angle detection sensors match each other (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034; discloses a correction amplitude amount (ah) that is added to the amplitude detected (Hamp’) to obtain a compensated amplitude (Hamp)), and by mutually adding or subtracting the pair of second output signals whose amplitude level has been adjusted (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034).
Kobori in view of Ono does not disclose the second angle detection sensor is a pair of second angle detection sensors that output a signal corresponding to an angle of the mirror portion around the second axis.
Jeanroy teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the second angle detection sensor is a pair of second angle detection sensors (see 4 of Figs. 1 and 3-4; note the Examiner interprets the first pair of angle detection sensors to be 4 that are parallel with 7 on opposite sides of 2 in annotated Fig. 4 below) that output a signal corresponding to an angle of the mirror portion around the second axis (see 4 of Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second angle detection sensor is a pair of second angle detection sensors that output a signal corresponding to an angle of the mirror portion around the second axis as taught by the optical scanning device of Jeanroy in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Jeanroy teaches it is known to include these features in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an inexpensive optical scanning device with improved performance, limited losses of energy and stability of the anisotropy of dampening of the resonator.
PNG
media_image1.png
605
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, Morikawa teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the pair of first angle detection sensors are disposed on opposite sides the first axis facing each other (Para. 0053, 0067 and see 17b, c of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical scanning device of Morikawa in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Morikawa teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an optical scanning device with improved accuracy that effectively removes unnecessary vibrations.
Furthermore, Kobori further discloses, the processor generates the second angle detection signal by mutually subtracting the signals forming the adjusted pair of second output signals (Para. 0018-0020 and 0031-0034; discloses a correction amplitude amount (ah) that is added to the amplitude detected (Hamp’) to obtain a compensated amplitude (Hamp)).
Regarding claim 11, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the processor generates the first angle detection signal by mutually adding the signals forming the adjusted pair of first output signals (Para. 0032 and see 37h, 37v of Fig. 4; note, discloses adding or subtracting signals).
Furthermore, Morikawa teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the pair of first angle detection sensors are disposed on opposite sides the first axis facing each other (Para. 0053, 0067 and see 17b, c of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical scanning device of Morikawa in the combination of Kobori in view of Ono since Morikawa teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an optical scanning device with improved accuracy that effectively removes unnecessary vibrations.
Regarding claim 12, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the processor includes a second driving signal generator (9) that generates a second driving signal applied to the second actuator (Para. 0018-0019, 0024-0025 and see “Hphase”, ”Vphase”, “Hdrive” and “Vdrive”), and feeds back the second angle detection signal to the second driving signal generator.
Regarding claim 13, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the second driving signal generator is a drive circuit having a phase synchronization circuit (Para. 0019 and see “Hphase” and “Vphase”).
Regarding claim 14, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, the second driving signal is a sinusoidal wave (Para. 0035-0038 and see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Ono further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical scanning device that it would have been desirable to make the first angle detection sensor is a piezoelectric element (Para. 0160 and see 100A of Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical scanning device of Ono in the optical scanning device of Kobori since Ono teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical scanning device for the purpose of providing an effective optical scanning device with reduced noises.
Regarding claim 16, Kobori, Ono, Morikawa and Jeanroy discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Kobori further discloses, an image drawing system (Figs. 1-4) comprising: the optical scanning device according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above); and a light source (13) that irradiates the mirror portion (15) with light, wherein the processor (6) controls a light irradiation timing (10) of the light source based on the first angle detection signal and the second angle detection signal (Para. 0017 and 0020-0021).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-17 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.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/22/2025