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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 and 21 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the two or more interlaced nested spiral spring is a torsion spring" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the one or more interlaced nested spiral spring" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko JP 2002221673A.
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko teaches a deflection device for Lissajous scanning, comprising a frame (figs 1-9 beam member 3)and a mirror (mirror 7), the mirror being movably arranged in a recess in the frame by means of a suspension mount comprising one or more springs (beam portions 4b), each spring being connected at one end to the mirror (page 3 “The thin plate member 5 is made of single crystal silicon doped with an N-type impurity and has a square shape, is arranged in the opening 3 a of the frame member 3, and is integrated with the beam portion 4 b of each beam member 4” plate member 5 is a carrier for mirror 7 and 5/7 are considered to constitute the mirror) and at the other end (wire lead portion 4a) to the frame, wherein each of the one or more springs has a shape of a path segment along a circumference of the mirror in such a way that the path segments of the one or more springs together cover more than 360 degrees (see fig. 10).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko JP 2002221673A.
Regarding claim 2, Kaneko does not explicitly recite the one or more springs enable the mirror to swing back and forth about each of two or three axes with a respective eigenfrequency, the eigenfrequencies associated with the two or three axes being equal or substantially equal.
However Kaneko does state: is apparent from the above description, according to the present invention, optical elements such as mirrors, lenses, diffraction gratings, pinhole plates, etc. are applied to incident light in accordance with the potential applied to the electrodes. It can be inclined in various directions with respect to
It can be made to move along the optical axis of the incident light without tilting, or it can be made to stand still at a predetermined control position, or it can be made to continuously perform a desired displacement. It has the feature of being able to. In addition, at this time, the beam member slightly twists and elongates, but these are extremely small as compared with the conventional example, and the position of the optical element can be substantially controlled only by bending displacement (see page 9).
The limitation of driving at specific eigenfrequencies does not impart any additional structure that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in this case as the limitations only appear to apply to the springs themselves.
Regarding claim 22, Kaneko teaches all the limitations of claim 22 except the mirror is vacuum packaged. However, vacuum packaging a mirror is known to reduce defects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko to apply a vacuum packed mirror to reduce defects.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko JP 2002221673A in view of Takashi US 2006/0170919 and further in view of Chen US 2009/0185251.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneko teaches all the limitations of claim 3 except the deflection device comprises a driving device that is configured to excite swing motion of the mirror about each of the two or three axes at or near the respective eigenfrequency.
Takahashi teaches a driving device that is configured to excite swing motion of the mirror about each of the two or three axes at or near the respective eigenfrequency resulting in maximizing turning amplitude with small amounts of drive power ([0181]-[0184]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Takashi to maximize driving efficiency. Chen teaches these eigenfrequencies can be optimized across different axes to accommodate various reflectors [0064]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify Kaneko in view of Chen to accommodate various reflectors.
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko teaches an electrostatic driving device [0006]. Kaneko does not explicitly teach the driving device comprises one or more piezoelectric actuators, each of the one or more springs, being attached to one of the one or more piezoelectric actuators. However Takashi teaches a piezoelectric actuators can be easily be substituted for piezoelectric actuators (see [0189]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko in view of Takashi as the electrostatic driving device of Kaneko is easily substituted with a piezoelectric actuator according to Takahashi.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches the driving device is configured to excite the swing motion by applying periodic driving signals to the one or more piezoelectric actuators, the periodic driving signals including for each of the two or three axes a driving signal having a frequency equal or close to the eigenfrequency associated with the respective axis [0184].
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches the driving device is configured to limit an amplitude of the swing motion [0046].
Regarding claim 19, Chen appears to teach the driving device comprises a control loop configured to control the frequencies of the periodic driving signals based upon a measured phase position of mirror, wherein a level of the frequencies is determined by a predefined scanning resolution and a predefined scanning repetition rate, and wherein the periodic driving signals have equal or different scanning repetition rates [0041]. While Chen does not explicitly recite a “control loop” it is not apparent this limitation placed any additional structural limitations on a driving mechanism not already taught by Chen and Chen does teach operation at specific frequencies based on a relative phases of about the mirror axes.
Regarding claim 20, Kaneko teaches the driving device further comprises a drive electrode (fixed electrode member 9)attached to each of the one or more springs and/or to the mirror.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko JP 2002221673A in view of Chen U S2009/0185251.
Regarding 15, Kaneko teaches all the limitations of claim 15 except the deflection device the mirror is configured such that the moment of inertia of the mirror is different in the at least two axes for adjusting any difference between the frequencies of the driving signal associated with the respective axis. Kaneko is silent regarding any particular mirror specifications. However Chen discloses this is a matter of obvious design choice as various types of mirrors can be accommodated in similar applications [0064]-0065]. Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Kaneko in view of Chen as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding 16 Chen teaches a geometry of the mirror is different with respect to the at least two axes [0064].
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the mirror is elliptical (fig. 13B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871