DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 17-24), filed 05/14/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “as shown in FIG. 14A of D1 [Melville], FIG. 14A of D1 fails to disclose the feature of the connecting portion in the amended claim 1, the connecting member 1416 does not connected to the disposing portion 1412” (pgs. 17-21). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that in light of the instant application’s disclosure stating: “it will be understood that when an element (or device) is referred to as be "connected to" another element, it can be directly connected to other element, or it can be indirectly connected to the other element, that is, intervening elements may be present. In contrast, when an element is referred to as be "directly connected to" another element, there are no intervening elements present” (¶0055 of as-filed specification filed 08/25/2023), the present claim language allows Melville’s connecting portion 1406, a connecting member 1416, and disposing portions 1412 to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of a connecting portion connected to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions (see ¶0107 of Melville: monocrystalline silicon layer 1406 can be bonded to silicon layer 1412; see also FIG. 14A showing the connecting portion 1406 connected to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions 1412 (without any intervening elements present)) and a connecting member connected to the two disposing portions and disposed between the two actuating members (¶0107 of Melville: A length of lateral protrusions 1416 [connecting member] helps to define how much movement is induced by piezoelectric actuators; see FIG. 14A showing a connecting member 1416 connected to the two disposing portions 1412 (with intervening element 1414 present) and disposed between the two actuating members 1414-1 and 1414-2) in light of the as-filed specification. See MPEP § 2173.01 Section I. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains that the Melville reference reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language regarding the claim 1 limitation directed to the connecting portion, connecting member and the disposing portions.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “the two free ends 211a, 212a are near to each other, and the two fixed ends 211 b, 212b are away from each other, and a terminal of the waveguide 140 is connected to the connecting portion 213 and near to the fixed end 212b. However, D1 [Melville] fails to disclose the aforementioned features in Fig. 7 of the present application, which are corresponding to the amended claim 13” (pgs. 21-22). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Melville does indeed disclose a waveguide (1408) disposed between the two actuating members and penetrated through the connecting member, wherein a terminal of the waveguide is connected to the connecting portion and near to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions, and another terminal of the waveguide is near to the two free ends of the two disposing portions (see FIG. 14A showing a waveguide 1408 disposed between the two actuating members 1414 and penetrated through the connecting member 1416, wherein a terminal of the waveguide is connected to the connecting portion 1406 (i.e., without any intervening elements present) and near to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions 1412, and another terminal of the waveguide (1410) is near to the two free ends of the two disposing portions 1412; ¶0106: light can be received by waveguide 1408 from a fiber optic cable engaging notch 1410 defined by base region 1402). Therefore, the present claim language allows Melville’s waveguide 1408 to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “near to” consistent with the specification (see discussion supra regarding the term “connected to”). Applicant is respectfully reminded that “If an Office action has issued where the plain meaning of the claim terms was used, applicant may point out that the term has been given a special definition. Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition.” See MPEP § 2173.01 Section I. Since Applicant has not provided any such indication in the as-filed specification nor the Remarks filed 05/14/2026, the Examiner maintains that the Melville reference reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the present claim language regarding the waveguide’s positional relationships with the connecting and disposing portions via the terms “near to” and “connected to”.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “As shown in paragraph [0096] of D1, the two driving signals applying to the actuating members have a phase shift, and are out of phase with respect to each other. Thus, D1 fails to disclose the feature of "the two actuating members are actuated in a same dimension either in phase or out of phase simultaneously to drive the waveguide to vibrate in two dimensions to generate a scan pattern" in the amended claims 1, 13” (pg. 22-23). However, it appears that Applicant has misconstrued the recited limitation because claims 1 and 13 recite (underlined for emph.): “wherein the two actuating members are actuated in a same dimension either in phase or out of phase simultaneously to drive the waveguide to vibrate in two dimensions to generate a scan pattern”. Therefore, Applicant’s citing of ¶0096 of Melville stating that the actuators are each out of phase with one another other actually satisfies the present claim language of “the two actuating members are actuated out of phase simultaneously…”. Even assuming, arguendo, that Melville’s two actuators are in phase with each another, this condition would also satisfy the present claim language. Furthermore, Melville does indeed disclose the entire claimed limitation, starting with the two actuating members are actuated in a same dimension (¶0123: each of actuators can be actuated in the same direction to impart different forces upon cantilevered beam). Meville further discloses that the two actuating members are actuated either in phase or out of phase simultaneously to drive the waveguide to vibrate in two dimensions to generate a scan pattern (¶0096: The signal generator 1002, in concert with the phase shifters 1004 and 1006 provides four phases that are 90° out of phase with respect to each other; ¶0102: . X′-axis and Y′-axis phase control modules 1224 in turn cooperatively drive piezoelectric actuators; ¶0098: circuitry may be provided to provide separate phase and amplitude controlled signals to the first (X′-axis) pair of piezoelectric actuators 406-1, 406-3 and second (Y′-axis) pair of piezoelectric actuators 406-2, 406-4; ¶0106-08: piezoelectric actuators 1414-1 and 1414-2 induce lateral movement [same dimension] of cantilevered beam 1404 [with waveguide] while periodically actuating piezoelectric actuator 1414-3 can generate vertical movement of cantilevered beam 1404. In this way, the actuators can generate a two-dimensional scan pattern). Thus, the Applicant has provided no evidence of a teaching away from the claimed condition and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “under the premise of D1 [Melville] fails to disclose the features about "nonlinear mode coupling to achieve 2D (two dimensional) scanning" in the amended claims 1, 13 and any teaching of same-direction actuation producing multi-dimensional motion” (pgs. 23-24). However, the Examiner notes that the Melville reference was not relied upon for any teachings directed to the nonlinear vibration of the waveguide as recited in claim 4, but rather for combining the teachings of Melville with the teachings of Seibel specifically directed to the claimed nonlinear condition. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant further asserts that “the motion generated by the waveguide of D2 is generated directly by the actuating members, and the motion generated by the waveguide of the present application is generated by the connecting member and the free ends of the disposing portion driven by the actuating members. The structure of the optical scanner of D2 is a simple cantilever structure, and the structure of the present application is a coupled dual-arm structure.” Applicant then refers to features in Tables 1 and 2 (pg. 24). The Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be arguing features that are not positively recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145 Section VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988). Seibel teaches: wherein when a driving signal is applied to each of the two actuating members, the scan pattern of the waveguide is a line scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates linearly; and the scan pattern of the waveguide is an ellipse scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates nonlinearly; wherein a frequency of the driving signal matches a resonant frequency of the waveguide (¶0071, 0084: two actuators; ¶0043: optical fiber device 10, which is drivable in a variable linear or elliptical scan mode. The scan mode shown in this figure can be generated by driving an optical cantilever 20, into a resonant condition…a (linear) scan pattern 22 can be generated by applying voltage on one or opposing electrodes…the concurrent application of a second sinusoidal voltage (cosine wave) to the second orthogonal set of electrodes 34, at the same or slightly different resonant frequency, causes the resonating fiber tip to move in an elliptical pattern [nonlinear]; ¶0044: the imaging lenses focus and magnify the scanned point source from the scanning fiber tip to the region of interest (ROI) in either the linear (one-dimensional) or elliptical (two-dimensional) patterns). It is commonly known in the art that an elliptical scan pattern corresponds to a nonlinear vibration of the waveguide. Indeed, the instant specification is commensurate with Seibel’s teachings in ¶0069 of as-filed disclosure: “The scan pattern of the waveguide 240 is an ellipse when the waveguide 240 is excited and vibrates nonlinearly”. Additionally, the Examiner notes that it is not necessary that the inventions of Melville and Seibel references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review, and that combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. See MPEP § 2145 Section III, stating "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). The Applicant has not sufficiently disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding Melville’s teaching and Melville in view of Seibel’s teaching, both findings rendering the obviousness of the claimed conditions as recited in claim 4. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claimed limitation directed to the linear and nonlinear vibration of the waveguide would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as detailed previously (pgs. 9-11 of Non-Final Office Action) and below.
Applicant argues regarding the teachings of Xu, “the structure of D4 is more complex than the optical scanning device of the original claims 9, 21 of the present application” (pg. 25). However, such an argument does not appear to be directed to any claimed aspects of the instant invention nor is it germane to Examiner’s findings of obviousness. Applicant argues regarding the teachings of Zong, “D5 discloses an imaging system using FPGA control and fiber scanning, but fails to disclose the optical scanning device of the amended claims 1, 13” (pgs. 25-26). Regarding both arguments directed to D4-D5, Applicant is respectfully reminded that "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). Furthermore, both arguments unaccompanied by evidentiary support is insufficient to rebut Examiner's findings of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See 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."). Applicant also argues regarding the Lovely reference: “D3 discloses a dental imaging system, but fails to disclose the optical scanning device of the amended claims 1, 13” (pgs. 24-25). However, Examiner notes that Lovely’s dental imaging system includes an optical scanning device (see FIGS. 10-11 of Lovely; ¶0079-85 of Lovely: “a dental imaging system includes a scanned-beam assembly 1028 that include laser diodes 1015a, 1015b that are coupled to respective optical fibers 1016a, 1016b. The combined fluxes exit the output fiber 1031 and a lens 1019 processes the combined fluxes to produce an interrogation beam 1020 that is scanned over at least a portion of a tooth 1001 by a micro-electromechanical (MEMS) scanner 1033 that includes a rotatable mirror 1032…other optical scanners can be used”). The Lovely reference is analogous art by virtue of being from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention even if it addresses a different problem. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments amount to conclusory statements and are insufficient to overcome Examiner’s evidentiary findings regarding the obviousness of the features as recited in the dependent claims.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus the newly amended Claims 1-4, 9-16 and 21-26 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
2. Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the newly-amended limitation of the actuating members covering the free and fixed ends of the two disposing portions, the Examiner notes that such a limitation does not appear to be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the newly claimed features of the inventio (see corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)). Furthermore, such a limitation renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope as unclear and indefinite (see corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). Therefore, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because these new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 05/14/2026), as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-16 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The replacement claims submitted 05/14/2026 were not filed with the original disclosure filed on 08/25/2023 and are therefore examined for new matter, see MPEP 608.04(b) and 714.01(e). Claims 1 and 13 limitation “wherein the two free ends and the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions are covered by the two actuating members” amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 08/25/2023 because all embodiments corresponding to FIGS. 1-19 as disclosed within the as-filed specification fail to disclose that the actuating members cover the free ends and the fixed ends of the disposing portions. The as-filed specification appears to be completely silent with regard to the free and fixed ends of the disposing portions being covered by the actuating members. In fact, ¶0056 of the specification states “The two actuating members 120 a, 120 b are disposed side by side on the two disposing portions 111, 112, respectively”, and ¶0066 states “The two actuating members 220 a, 220 b are facing each other and disposed on the two disposing portions 211, 212, respectively”. However, neither of these statements imply that the actuating members cover the free and fixed ends of the disposing portions. Applicant refers solely to FIGS. 1 and 7 in pgs. 19-22 of the Remarks (filed 05/14/2026) for support, but both of these figures fail to show the actuating members (120 in FIG. 1, 220 FIG. 7) covering the free ends and fixed ends of the disposing portion (111a/b – 112a/b in FIG. 1, 211a/b – 212a/b in FIG. 7), rather they appear to depict the free and fixed ends of the disposing portions to be adjacent to the actuating members and/or bordering them at best. FIGS. 14-15 show steps of fabricating the optical scanning device wherein the schematic view of the device is depicted. However, FIG. 14 fail to depict the disposing portions at all and FIG. 15 similarly shows four actuating members 120a-b adjacent to the free and fixed ends of the disposing portions 111a/b – 112a/b, and not covering them. The specification discloses in ¶0075: “optical scanning device 300 has four actuating members 120a, 120b in the opposite sides of the substrate 110” and is silent with regard to the disposing portions. Therefore, the originally filed claims along with the specification fail to provide any support for the newly claimed limitation. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite range limitations that are supported by the originally-filed specification.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, 14-16 and 21-26 inherit the deficiencies of the rejected base claim, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-16 and 21-26 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.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite the limitation: “wherein the two free ends and the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions are covered by the two actuating members”. The limitation is unclear due to the fact that the as-filed specification fails to disclose and/or depict any such positional relationship between the two free ends and fixed ends of the disposing portion and the actuating members. Furthermore, the limitation is rendered unclear due to “the disposing portion” recited as functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element of ‘the portion’ performs the function of ‘disposing’. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the disposing portion to perform the function of disposing. Due to the lack of clarity regarding what the disposing structures actually are, it is therefore unclear in what manner the actuating members are covering such disposing portions. The as-filed specification appears to be silent with regard to specifying any material/structure/element that the disposing portion refers to. The positional relationship as claimed is not depicted nor disclosed in the instant specification and Figures. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering Claims 1 and 13 as indefinite. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the limitation be clarified such that the claimed structures and positional relationships finds clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “the two actuating members are disposed on the two disposing portions”.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, 14-16 and 21-26 inherit the deficiency of Claims 1 and 13 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 3, 10, 13, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melville et al. (US 2021/0191108 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Melville discloses: An optical scanning device (¶0085: optical scanner; FIGS. 2,4, 14-15), comprising:
a substrate (1402) comprising: two disposing portions (1412), wherein the two disposing portions comprise two free ends and two fixed ends, and one of the two free ends is opposite to one of the two fixed ends, the two free ends are near to each other, and the two fixed ends are near to each other (¶0107, 0109: silicon layer 1412 can provide a mounting surface to which one or more actuation structures can be affixed; see FIGS. 14A-B showing free ends and fixed ends of 1412); and
a connecting portion (1406) connected to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions (¶0107: monocrystalline silicon layer 1406 can be bonded to silicon layer 1412);
two actuating members (1414-1 & 1414-2) disposed side by side on the two disposing portions, respectively (¶0107: silicon layer 1412 can provide a mounting surface to which one or more actuation structures can be affixed…Each of actuators 1414-1 and 1414-2 can extend between a notch defined by monocrystalline layer 1406);
a connecting member (1416) connected to the two disposing portions and disposed between the two actuating members (¶0107: A length of lateral protrusions 1416 [connecting member] helps to define how much movement is induced by piezoelectric actuators); and
a waveguide (1408) disposed between the two actuating members and penetrated through the connecting member, wherein a terminal of the waveguide is connected to the connecting portion and near to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions, and another terminal of the waveguide is near to the two free ends of the two disposing portions (see FIG. 14A showing a waveguide 1408 disposed between the two actuating members 1414 and penetrated through the connecting member 1416, wherein a terminal of the waveguide is connected to the connecting portion 1406 and near to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions 1412, and another terminal of the waveguide (1410) is near to the two free ends of the two disposing portions 1412; ¶0106: light can be received by waveguide 1408 from a fiber optic cable engaging notch 1410 defined by base region 1402);
wherein the two actuating members are actuated in a same dimension either in phase or out of phase simultaneously to drive the waveguide to vibrate in two dimensions to generate a scan pattern (¶0106: Cantilevered beam 1404 with waveguide 1408 can be referred to as a cantilevered optical member; ¶0100: the X′, Y′ and phase difference between the X′ direction oscillation and Y′ direction oscillation of the scanning optical fiber; ¶0123: each of actuators can be actuated in the same or different directions to impart different forces upon cantilevered beam; ¶0106-08: piezoelectric actuators 1414-1 and 1414-2 induce lateral movement of cantilevered beam 1404 [with waveguide] while periodically actuating piezoelectric actuator 1414-3 can generate vertical movement of cantilevered beam 1404. In this way, the actuators can generate a two-dimensional scan pattern);
wherein the two free ends and the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions are covered by the two actuating members (¶0107: silicon layer 1412 can provide a mounting surface to which one or more actuation structures can be affixed; see FIG. 14A showing the two actuating members 1414-1,2 are disposed on the two disposing portions 1412).
Regarding Claim 3, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Melville further discloses: wherein when a driving signal is applied to each of the two actuating members, the waveguide is driven to vibrate in one of the two dimensions (¶0100: the X′, Y′ and phase difference between the X′ direction oscillation and Y′ direction oscillation of the scanning optical fiber; ¶0123: each of actuators can be actuated in the same or different directions to impart different forces upon cantilevered beam; ¶0107-08: piezoelectric actuators 1414-1 and 1414-2 induce lateral movement [one of two dimensions] of cantilevered beam 1404, while periodically actuating piezoelectric actuator 1414-3 can generate vertical movement of cantilevered beam 1404. In this way, the actuators can generate a two-dimensional scan pattern).
Regarding Claim 10, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Melville further discloses: A micro display comprising: the optical scanning device; wherein the micro display is one of an eyewear device, an auto diagnostic monitor display, a surgical vital sign monitor display and a fighter pilot head mount display (FIG. 1; ¶0007-8, 0081: eyeglasses of augmented reality system).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Melville discloses: An optical scanning device (¶0085: optical scanner; FIGS. 2,4, 14-15), comprising:
a substrate (1402) comprising: two disposing portions (1412), wherein the two disposing portions comprise two free ends and two fixed ends, and one of the two free ends is opposite to one of the two fixed ends, the two free ends are near to each other, and the two fixed ends are away from each other (¶0107, 0109: silicon layer 1412 can provide a mounting surface to which one or more actuation structures can be affixed; see FIGS. 14A-B showing free ends and fixed ends of 1412); and
a connecting portion (1406) connected to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions (¶0107: monocrystalline silicon layer 1406 can be bonded to silicon layer 1412);
two actuating members (1414-1 & 1414-2) facing each other and disposed on the two disposing portions, respectively (¶0107: silicon layer 1412 can provide a mounting surface to which one or more actuation structures can be affixed…Each of actuators 1414-1 and 1414-2 can extend between a notch defined by monocrystalline layer 1406);
a connecting member (1416) connected to the two disposing portions and disposed between the two actuating members (¶0107: A length of lateral protrusions 1416 [connecting member] helps to define how much movement is induced by piezoelectric actuators); and
a waveguide (1408) disposed between the two actuating members and penetrated through the connecting member, wherein a terminal of the waveguide is connected to the connecting portion of the substrate and near to one of the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions, and another terminal of the waveguide is near to another one of the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions (see FIG. 14A showing a waveguide 1408 disposed between the two actuating members 1414 and penetrated through the connecting member 1416, wherein a terminal of the waveguide is connected to the connecting portion 1406 and near to the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions 1412, and another terminal of the waveguide (1410) is near to the two free ends of the two disposing portions 1412; ¶0106: light can be received by waveguide 1408 from a fiber optic cable engaging notch 1410 defined by base region 1402);
wherein the two actuating members are actuated in a same dimension either in phase or out of phase simultaneously to drive the waveguide to vibrate in two dimensions to generate a scan pattern (¶0100: the X′, Y′ and phase difference between the X′ direction oscillation and Y′ direction oscillation of the scanning optical fiber; ¶0123: each of actuators can be actuated in the same or different directions to impart different forces upon cantilevered beam; ¶0107-08: piezoelectric actuators 1414-1 and 1414-2 induce lateral movement of cantilevered beam 1404…actuators can generate a two-dimensional scan pattern);
wherein the two free ends and the two fixed ends of the two disposing portions are covered by the two actuating members (¶0107: silicon layer 1412 can provide a mounting surface to which one or more actuation structures can be affixed; see FIG. 14A showing the two actuating members 1414-1,2 are disposed on the two disposing portions 1412).
Regarding Claim 15, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville further discloses: wherein when a driving signal is applied to each of the two actuating members, the waveguide is driven in one of the two dimensions (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Regarding Claim 22, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville further discloses: A micro display, comprising: the optical scanning device; wherein the micro display is one of an eyewear device, an auto diagnostic monitor display, a surgical vital sign monitor display and a fighter pilot head mount display (see rejection of claim 10 supra).
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melville et al. (US 2021/0191108 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Melville does not appear to explicitly disclose: the substrate is a stainless steel substrate, each of the two actuating members is made of a Lead Zirconate Titanate (PZT) thin film in a bimorph configuration, and the waveguide is a tapered tip optical fiber.
However, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07. In the present case, Melville teaches a monolithic substrate with electrically conductive traces, actuating members made of PZT thin film in bimorph configuration, and the waveguide being a tapered tip optical fiber (¶0087, 0119: piezoelectric actuators 406 coupled to a monolithic component…supporting structure 1814 can take the form of a silicon substrate that includes electrically conductive traces for carrying signals to piezoelectric actuators 1802; ¶0133: piezoelectric layer 2114-1 can be a PZT (lead zirconate titanate) layer; ¶0023, 0131-33: the cantilevered optical member has a tapered shape with a distal end narrower than a proximal end). Melville further teaches that such an electrically conductive monolithic substrate can carry electrical signals to the actuators (¶0119), such a tapered tip optical fiber provides an advantage of the narrower tip region enabling the cantilevered beam to have a greater deflection at a given frequency over a non-tapered cantilever (¶0131), and such a bimorph configuration for the actuator allows “cantilevered beam 2104 can be made to deflect upward or downward, and to scan in a vertical direction” depending on the voltage applied (¶0133).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Melville to satisfy the claimed material property condition(s) of the substrate in addition to the actuating member and the optical fiber features, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 14, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville further discloses: wherein the substrate is a stainless steel substrate, each of the two actuating members is made of a Lead Zirconate Titanate (PZT) thin film in a bimorph configuration, and the waveguide is a tapered optical fiber (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melville et al. (US 2021/0191108 A1) in view of Seibel et al. (US 2009/0028407 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 3, as above. Melville does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein when a driving signal is applied to each of the two actuating members, the scan pattern of the waveguide is a line scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates linearly; and the scan pattern of the waveguide is an ellipse scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates nonlinearly; wherein a frequency of the driving signal matches a resonant frequency of the waveguide.
Seibel is related to Melville with respect to an optical scanning device comprising two disposing portions with connecting portion, actuating members, and a waveguide disposed therebetween (FIGS. 1-2 & 8; ¶0043-44, 0049, 0051, 0067, 0071, 0084) and Seibel teaches: wherein when a driving signal is applied to each of the two actuating members, the scan pattern of the waveguide is a line scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates linearly; and the scan pattern of the waveguide is an ellipse scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates nonlinearly; wherein a frequency of the driving signal matches a resonant frequency of the waveguide (¶0071, 0084: two actuators; ¶0043: optical fiber device 10, which is drivable in a variable linear or elliptical scan mode. The scan mode shown in this figure can be generated by driving an optical cantilever 20, into a resonant condition…a (linear) scan pattern 22 can be generated by applying voltage on one or opposing electrodes…the concurrent application of a second sinusoidal voltage (cosine wave) to the second orthogonal set of electrodes 34, at the same or slightly different resonant frequency, causes the resonating fiber tip to move in an elliptical pattern; ¶0044: the imaging lenses focus and magnify the scanned point source from the scanning fiber tip to the region of interest (ROI) in either the linear (one-dimensional) or elliptical (two-dimensional) patterns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Melville in view of Seibel to satisfy the claimed condition, because “it would be desirable to change the size of a scanned pattern, as well as its shape, and other characteristics, when providing any of the desired functions using a single scanning optical fiber. For example, a scanning pattern during imaging might image a substantially larger region compared to a relatively smaller portion of that region that should be scanned when delivering therapy, or doing an optical diagnosis”, thereby providing the beneficial result of “generating a desired multidimensional scanning pattern by modulating the amplitude of the resonant motion of the scanned light”, as taught in paragraphs ¶0012 and ¶0020 of Seibel.
Regarding Claim 16, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 15, as above. Melville-Seibel further discloses: wherein when a driving signal is applied to each of the two actuating members, the scan pattern of the waveguide is a line scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates linearly; and the scan pattern of the waveguide is an ellipse scan pattern when the waveguide is excited and vibrates nonlinearly; wherein a frequency of the driving signal matches a resonant frequency of the waveguide (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Claims 12, 24 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melville et al. (US 2021/0191108 A1) in view of Lovely (US 2007/0134615 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Melville further discloses: A micro imaging system (¶0004, 0106-07: small displays…micron dimensions of MEMS scanner), comprising: a light source configured to illuminate a light (¶0082, 0106: sources of light received by waveguide).
Melville does not appear to explicitly disclose: a 2×1 fiber coupler, comprising: two input channels coupled with the light source, and configured to receive the light; the optical scanning device, coupled with the 2×1 fiber coupler, and configured to scan the light, which coupled from one of the two input channels to form the scan pattern on a surface; and a photodetector arranged in parallel with the light source, which connected to the other one of the two input channels, and configured to receive the scan pattern via the optical scanning device.
Lovely is related to Melville with respect to an optical scanning device comprising a light source, actuating member and a waveguide disposed therebetween (FIGS. 10-11; ¶0079-85) and Lovely teaches: A micro imaging system (¶0082: imaging system includes a scanning assembly 1128), comprising: a light source configured to illuminate a light (¶0082: lasers 1115a, 1115b); a 2×1 fiber coupler, comprising: two input channels coupled with the light source, and configured to receive the light; the optical scanning device, coupled with the 2×1 fiber coupler, and configured to scan the light, which coupled from one of the two input channels to form the scan pattern on a surface; and a photodetector arranged in parallel with the light source, which connected to the other one of the two input channels, and configured to receive the scan pattern via the optical scanning device (¶0079, 0082: A fiber coupler 1130 is coupled to the optical fibers 1116a, 1116b and combines portions of the optical fluxes from the lasers 1115a, 1115b to produce a combined flux in an optical fiber 1131; ¶0083: the scan controller can send a signal to the amplifier 1124 or to a multiplier stage that follows it (also not shown) in order to modulate the electronic gain between the detector 1112 and the visible laser 1115b according to the position of the scanned fiber end 1118; ¶0085: The signal from the detector 1112 is amplified by an amplifier 1124 that is coupled to the visible display laser 1115b so as to modulate the intensity of the visible display laser 1115b; ¶0083: A distal end 1118 of the optical fiber 1131 protrudes in cantilever fashion from a two-axis piezoelectric actuator 1117 that is driven in such a manner that the fiber end 1118 oscillates in a pre-determined two-dimensional pattern; see FIG. 11 showing photodetector 1112 arranged in parallel with the light source 1115, which connected to the other one of the two input channels 1116, and configured to receive the scan pattern via the optical scanning device 1128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Melville in view of Lovely to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a fiber coupler configuration is known and would be utilized for instantaneous modulation of the light flux to allow the contrast of certain features in the display image to be enhanced, as taught in paragraph ¶0085 of Lovely.
Regarding Claim 24, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville-Lovely further discloses: A micro imaging system, comprising: a light source configured to illuminate a light; a 2×1 fiber coupler, comprising: two input channels coupled with the light source, and configured to receive the light; the optical scanning device, coupled with the 2×1 fiber coupler, and configured to scan the light, which coupled from one of the two input channels to form the scan pattern on a surface; and a photodetector arranged in parallel with the light source, which connected to the other one of the two input channels, and configured to receive the scan pattern via the optical scanning device (see rejection of claim 12 supra).
Regarding Claim 25, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville further discloses: A micro imaging system (¶0004, 0106-07: small displays…micron dimensions of MEMS scanner), comprising: a light source configured to illuminate a light on a surface to form an image (¶0082, 0106: sources of light received by waveguide; ¶0110: light emitted from the waveguide); the optical scanning device, configured to scan the scan pattern on the surface (¶0085: optical scanner).
Melville does not appear to explicitly disclose: a photodetector connected to the optical scanning device, and configured to receive the scan pattern via the optical scanning device.
Lovely is related to Melville with respect to an optical scanning device comprising a light source, actuating member and a waveguide disposed therebetween (FIGS. 10-11; ¶0079-85) and Lovely teaches: a photodetector connected to the optical scanning device, and configured to receive the scan pattern via the optical scanning device (¶0046, 0049, 0081, 0085: Photodetectors are coupled to amplifiers and they respond quickly to the instantaneous modulated light; ¶0083: the scan controller can send a signal to the amplifier 1124 or to a multiplier stage that follows it (also not shown) in order to modulate the electronic gain between the detector 1112 and the visible laser 1115b according to the position of the scanned fiber end 1118; ¶0085: The signal from the detector 1112 is amplified by an amplifier 1124 that is coupled to the visible display laser 1115b so as to modulate the intensity of the visible display laser 1115b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Melville in view of Lovely to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a photodetector is known and would be utilized for instantaneous modulation of the light flux to allow the contrast of certain features in the display image to be enhanced, as taught in paragraph ¶0085 of Lovely.
Regarding Claim 26, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville-Lovely further discloses: A micro imaging system, comprising: a light source; the optical scanning device, connected to the light source, wherein the light source illuminates a light on a surface to form a scan pattern via the optical scanning device; and a photodetector configured to receive the scan pattern (see rejection of claim 25 supra).
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melville et al. (US 2021/0191108 A1) in view of Xu et al. (WO 2018/222727 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 1, as above. Melville does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising: two layers of PZT thin films in a bimorph configuration disposed on each of the two actuating members, respectively.
Xu is related to Melville with respect to an optical scanning device comprising disposing and connecting portions, actuating members, and a waveguide disposed therebetween (FIGS. 3, 5-6; ¶0038, 0040, 0045, 0060, 0066, 0074) and Xu teaches: further comprising: two layers of PZT thin films in a bimorph configuration disposed on each of the two actuating members, respectively (FIG. 6; ¶0060: Scanner 600 comprises a multidimensional actuator 610 comprising a base 102, a first piezoelectric bending actuator 104, a second piezoelectric bending actuator 106, and a fiber optic 120; ¶0066: the two bending actuators are a bimorph structure including two layers of PZT material of equal thickness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Melville in view of Xu to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a bimorph configuration is known and would be utilized for lower resonant frequencies (~4 KHz), thereby allowing a bi-directional line-scan rate at approximately 8 kHz with a transmission range covering all useful wavelengths for imaging, as taught in paragraphs ¶0067 of Xu.
Regarding Claim 21, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 13, as above. Melville-Xu further discloses: further comprising: two layers of PZT thin films in a bimorph configuration disposed on each of the two actuating members, respectively (see rejection of claim 9 supra).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melville et al. (US 2021/0191108 A1) in view of Zong et al. (CN 107049247 A).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 11, Melville discloses the optical scanning device according to Claim 10, as above. Melville does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising: a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) controller electrically connected to the optical scanning device to provide two driving signals to the two actuating members and provide a light modulation to the waveguide of the optical scanning device.
Zong is related to Melville with respect to an optical scanning device comprising a light source, actuating member and a waveguide disposed therebetween (FIGS. 1, 3, 5; ¶0039, 0049, 0078-80) and Zong teaches: further comprising: a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) controller electrically connected to the optical scanning device to provide driving signals to actuating member and provide a light modulation to the waveguide of the optical scanning device (¶0080: The x and y control signals during the scanning process of the microelectromechanical scanner 22 are generated by an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) card (PXI-7853R), which is also used to drive an acousto-optic modulator [actuator] to adjust the laser intensity; ¶0075: intensity of laser adjusted by the acousto-optic modulator 13 and transmitted to the laser input fiber 11 [waveguide]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical scanning device of Melville in view of Zong to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) controller offers the advantage of producing high speed, uniform excitation, large scanning angle, and wide field of view across the entire field of view, as taught in paragraphs ¶0080 of Zong.
Regarding Claim 23, Melville discloses the micro display according to Claim 22, as above. Melville-Zong further discloses: further comprising: a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) controller electrically connected to the optical scanning device to provide two driving signals to the two actuating members and provide a light modulation to the waveguide of the optical scanning device (see rejection of claim 11 supra).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights