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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venema (US 2007/0236675), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Venema discloses a light reflecting device (Figs. 5, 7, 9-13), comprising:
a light reflective member (11, Fig. 5; 61, Fig. 11) having a mirror surface adapted to reflect light;
a deflecting mechanism (14, Fig. 5) configured to oscillate the light reflective member about an oscillation axis extending in a direction along the mirror surface (paras. [0085-0086]); and
a first regulating member (63, Fig. 11) facing a portion of the light reflective member (61) including the oscillation axis with a gap therebetween in a direction intersecting with the mirror surface (Figs. 5, 7, 9-13), and configured to regulate displacement of the oscillation axis in the direction intersecting with the mirror surface (paras. [0084, 0104]);
wherein the first regulating member extends parallel to the oscillation axis (Fig. 11; paras. [0104, 0106]); and
wherein hardness of material forming the first regulating member (13, 33, 63, Figs. 5, 7, 11) is lower than hardness of material forming a portion of the light reflective member (11, 31, 61) facing the first regulating member (note Figs. 5, 7, 11 vs. Figs. 12c, 13b; paras. [0092, 0108]).
Regarding claim 6, Venema discloses further comprising:
a pair of second regulating members (35, 35’, Fig. 7; 45, 47, Fig. 9) arranged so as to be axially symmetric with respect to the oscillation axis, facing the light reflective member (31, 41) with a gap therebetween in a direction intersecting with the mirror surface (Figs. 7, 9), and configured to regulate displacement of the light reflective member in the direction intersecting with the mirror surface (para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 7, Venema discloses wherein hardness of material forming the second regulating members (35, 35’, Fig. 7; 45, 47, Fig. 9) is lower than hardness of material forming a portion of the light reflective member (31, 41) facing the second regulating members (note Fig. 7 vs. Figs. 12c, 13b; paras. [0092, 0108]).
Regarding claim 11, Venema discloses a light reflecting device (Figs. 7, 9, 11), comprising:
a light reflective member (31, 41, 61) having a mirror surface adapted to reflect light;
a deflecting mechanism (14, Fig. 5) configured to oscillate the light reflective member about an oscillation axis extending in a direction along the mirror surface (paras. [0085-0086]); and
a pair of regulating members (63, Fig. 11) arranged so as to be axially symmetric with respect to the oscillation axis, facing the light reflective member (61) with a gap therebetween in a direction intersecting with the mirror surface (Fig. 11), and configured to regulate displacement of the light reflective member in the direction intersecting with the mirror surface (paras. [0084, 0104, 0106]);
wherein the first regulating member extends parallel to the oscillation axis (Fig. 11; paras. [0104, 0106]).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Venema discloses a lighting device (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
the light reflecting device (Figs. 5, 7, 9-13) according to claim 1; and
a light source (SO) configured to emit visible light (para. [0058]),
wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device is arranged to reflect the visible light toward a lighting area (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-13).
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 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venema (US 2007/0236675), as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, 14 and 19 above, and further in view of Kajiyama et al. (US 2023/0047188), of record.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8 and 9, Venema discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 6 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a geometric uneven pattern is formed on the first regulating member, and on each of the second regulating members, and wherein the uneven pattern is formed with an etching technique.
Regarding the product-by-process limitation of the uneven pattern formed with an etching technique, it has been recognized that “even 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.” See MPEP 2113.
However, Kajiyama discloses a light reflecting device (Figs. 1-23), wherein a geometric uneven pattern (5, 10, 41, and/or 42; paras. [0081, 0085-0086, 0088]) is formed on the first regulating member (1), and on each of the second regulating members (e.g., 31, 32), and wherein the uneven pattern is formed with an etching technique (paras. [0081, 0085-0086, 0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein a geometric uneven pattern is formed on the first regulating member, and on each of the second regulating members, and wherein the uneven pattern is formed with an etching technique, as in Kajiyama, into the light reflecting device of Venema to provide the desired friction interface.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Venema discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above, but fails to explicitly disclose a sensor device, comprising: the light reflecting device according to claim 1, and to claim 11; a light emitting element configured to emit invisible light; and a light receiving element configured to output a light detecting signal that corresponds to an incident intensity of invisible light, wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device is arranged to reflect the invisible light emitted from the light emitting element toward a sensing area, and to reflect invisible light reflected by an object situating in the sensing area toward the light receiving element.
However, Kajiyama discloses a sensor device (Figs. 24-25), comprising:
the light reflecting device (10) according to claim 1, and to claim 11;
a light emitting element (91) configured to emit invisible light (para. [0177]); and
a light receiving element (92) configured to output a light detecting signal that corresponds to an incident intensity of invisible light (paras. [0179-0180, 0184-0185]),
wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device (10) is arranged to reflect the invisible light emitted from the light emitting element (91) toward a sensing area (area with 300), and to reflect invisible light reflected by an object (300) situating in the sensing area toward the light receiving element (Figs. 24-25; para. [0184]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sensor device, comprising: the light reflecting device according to claim 1, and to claim 11; a light emitting element configured to emit invisible light; and a light receiving element configured to output a light detecting signal that corresponds to an incident intensity of invisible light, wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device is arranged to reflect the invisible light emitted from the light emitting element toward a sensing area, and to reflect invisible light reflected by an object situating in the sensing area toward the light receiving element, as in Kajiyama, with the light reflecting device of Venema to provide an optical scanning device as desired.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Venema discloses the limitations of claims 14 and 19 above, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a light emitting element configured to emit invisible light; and a light receiving element configured to output a light detecting signal that corresponds to an incident intensity of invisible light, wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device is arranged to reflect the invisible light emitted from the light emitting element toward a sensing area, and to reflect invisible light reflected by an object situating in the sensing area toward the light receiving element.
However, Kajiyama discloses further comprising:
a light emitting element (91) configured to emit invisible light (para. [0177]); and
a light receiving element (92) configured to output a light detecting signal that corresponds to an incident intensity of invisible light (paras. [0179-0180, 0184-0185]),
wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device (10) is arranged to reflect the invisible light emitted from the light emitting element (91) toward a sensing area (area with 300), and to reflect invisible light reflected by an object (300) situating in the sensing area toward the light receiving element (Figs. 24-25; para. [0184]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light emitting element configured to emit invisible light; and a light receiving element configured to output a light detecting signal that corresponds to an incident intensity of invisible light, wherein the mirror surface of the light reflecting device is arranged to reflect the invisible light emitted from the light emitting element toward a sensing area, and to reflect invisible light reflected by an object situating in the sensing area toward the light receiving element, as in Kajiyama, with the light reflecting device of Venema to provide an optical scanning device as desired.
Claims 5, 10, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venema (US 2007/0236675), as applied to claims 1, 6, 14 and 19 above, and further in view of McWhirter (US 2018/0284268), of record.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Venema discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 6 above, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a vibration applying device configured to apply ultrasonic vibrations to at least one of the light reflective member and the first regulating member, and to at least one of the light reflective member and the second regulating members.
However, McWhirter discloses a light reflective device (Figs. 1-8), further comprising:
a vibration applying device (159a, 159b) configured to apply ultrasonic vibrations to at least one of the light reflective member (115) and the first regulating member (e.g., 157, Fig. 1), and to at least one of the light reflective member and the second regulating members (e.g., 155, Fig. 1) (paras. [0052-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a vibration applying device configured to apply ultrasonic vibrations to at least one of the light reflective member and the first regulating member, and to at least one of the light reflective member and the second regulating members, as in McWhirter, into the light reflective device of Venema to effectively remove debris from the surface.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Venema fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lighting device is configured to be installed in a vehicle.
However, McWhirter discloses wherein the lighting device (Fig. 1) is configured to be installed in a vehicle (Fig. 9; paras. [0029, 0105]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lighting device configured to be installed in a vehicle, as in McWhirter, with the light reflective device of Venema to provide a Lidar system in a common application of a vehicle.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venema (US 2007/0236675) in view of Kajiyama et al. (US 2023/0047188), as applied to claims 12 and 17 above, and further in view of McWhirter (US 2018/0284268).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Venema in view of Kajiyama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor device is configured to be installed in a vehicle.
However, McWhirter discloses wherein the sensor device (Fig. 1) is configured to be installed in a vehicle (Fig. 9; paras. [0029, 0105]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor device configured to be installed in a vehicle, as in McWhirter, with the light reflecting device of Venema and Kajiyama to provide a Lidar system in a common application of a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to include the limitation of “wherein the first regulating member extends parallel to the oscillation axis,” and has argued that this distinguishes over each of NEC CORP (JP 2004-133196) and Venema (US 2007/0236675). It is conceded that the amendment overcomes the rejection over NEC CORP. However, upon further consideration, Venema discloses this feature based on an alternative embodiment as discussed above.
Applicant has additionally amended claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 2, and has argued that Venema discloses the opposite of this recited configuration. However, the arrangements as shown in Figs. 12 and 13 represent a different embodiment in which stiffness is increased at the hinge and part of the reflector is deformed (paras. [0108, 0111]), as compared to previous embodiments (paras. [0092-0096, 0098, 0101-0102, 0105]).
Therefore, the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Venema has been maintained and modified as necessary due to the amendments to the claims.
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 PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights