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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are moot, in part, and otherwise not persuasive. Due to amendments filed therewith, the amendments require renewed interpretation resulting in changed claim interpretation (see rejection details below).
With respect to the remarks’ assertion that the light source is not “opposite” the polygon because it is on the upper side (REMARKS, pp. 4-6), it is not persuasive because the claim never defines what the source(s) and polygon are “opposite” across of – whether they are opposite across vertical or horizontal median or symmetry line, another element, or some quantity of space. Similarly, claim limitations regarding a straight line that can pass through the rotation of the polygon can do so in almost any direction and extend to infinity since it is substantially unquantified by the claim language, therefore this must be true, as such a line can be drawn.
No special definition of “opposite” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “opposite”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2111-2111.01. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naito (US 20110116835).
Regarding claim 1: Naito discloses An optical scanning device (Title - Scanning optical apparatus and image forming apparatus using the same; Figs. 1-2) in which
beams of a first light source (light source 1a) and a second light source (light source 1b) are made incident on a rotary polygon mirror (5 - optical deflector; para. 58 – optical deflector is a polygon mirror) from both sides (e.g., two of six sides, per Fig. 1) of the rotary polygon mirror (5 - optical deflector), wherein
a position where the first light source is arranged (1a – light source) and a position of incidence of a beam of the first light source on the rotary polygon mirror (at 5a – first deflecting surface) are opposite each other (e.g., across intervening elements such as aperture stop 2a) in a main scanning direction (i.e., scanning plane, Fig. 1), with respect to the rotary polygon mirror (i.e., the beam path from the mirror defines the main scanning direction), and
a position where the second light source is arranged (1b – second light source) and a position of incidence of a beam of the second light source on the rotary polygon mirror (at 5b – first deflecting surface) are opposite each other (e.g., across intervening elements such as aperture stop 2b) in the main scanning direction (i.e., scanning plane, Fig. 1), with respect to the rotary polygon mirror (i.e., the beam path from the mirror defines the main scanning direction).
Regarding claim 2: Naito anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Naito further anticipates wherein the beams of the first light source and the second light source intersect with each other at a position on the side opposite (i.e., across intervening space/elements) of the first light source and the second light source in the main scanning direction with respect to the rotary polygon mirror (i.e., the line is subjective and not significantly defined by the claim other than through the rotation axis of the polygon).
Regarding claim 3: Naito anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Naito further anticipates wherein the beam of the first light source and the beam of the second light source are reflected by a first reflecting mirror (turn back mirror 16a) and a second reflecting mirror (turn back mirror 16b), respectively, and are made incident on the rotary polygon mirror (see fig. 2), and the first reflecting mirror and the second reflecting mirror are arranged on a side opposite (i.e., across intervening space/elements) to the first light source and the second light source in the main scanning direction with respect to the rotary polygon mirror (the scanning mirror are arranged for their respective sides with respect to the polygon mirror, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4: Naito anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Naito further anticipates wherein the beam of the first light source is made incident on the rotary polygon mirror from a first side opposite (i.e., across intervening space/elements) the first light source, with respect to a straight line which passes through a rotation axis of the rotary polygon mirror, and is parallel to the main scanning direction when viewed from a sub-scanning direction (the beams of light travel parallel to a scanning direction, and are on the opposite sides of the light sources; i.e., a straight line can pass through the rotation of the polygon in almost any direction and extend to infinity since it is unquantified by the claim, therefore this must be true), and
the beam of the second light source is made incident on the rotary polygon mirror from a second side opposite (i.e., across intervening space/elements) the second light source with respect to the straight line (i.e., the line is subjective and not significantly defined by the claim other than through the rotation axis of the polygon).
Regarding claim 5: Naito anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 3, as set forth above. Naito further anticipates wherein the first reflecting mirror and the second reflecting mirror are arranged, respectively, on opposite sides (i.e., across intervening space/elements) of a straight line (i.e., the line is subjective and not significantly defined by the claim other than through the rotation axis of the polygon) which passes through a rotation axis of the rotary polygon mirror and is parallel to the main scanning direction when viewed from a sub-scanning direction (the reflecting mirrors 16a and 16b are symmetrically disposed with respect to rotation axis 5c, as seen in figure 2; also, there are many arbitrary ways the line can be drawn that are not excluded by the claim).
Regarding claim 6: Naito anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Naito further anticipates wherein the device further comprises a cylindrical lens (in figure 1, cylindrical lenses 4a and 4b), wherein the cylindrical lens is disposed at a position on a side opposite (i.e., across intervening space/elements) the first light source and the second light source in the main scanning direction with respect to the rotary polygon mirror (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7: Naito anticipates the optical scanning device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Naito further anticipates wherein the optical scanning device of claim 1 is implemented in an image forming apparatus (title - image forming apparatus).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights