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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4–7, 11, 13–16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0100118 to Kimura.
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 1–4, 7, and 8, and their corresponding descriptions) an apparatus 100 comprising: a deflecting unit 5 configured to deflect a light flux from a light source 1 to scan a surface 7 in a main scanning direction while rotating at a constant angular velocity (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0069], [0075]); and an optical system 85 configured to guide the deflected light flux onto the scanned surface, wherein, in a main scanning cross section including an optical axis of the optical system, a width of the light flux on a deflecting surface of the deflecting unit is larger than a width of the deflecting surface (paragraph [0065]), wherein a scanning speed of the light flux on the scanned surface is highest at an on-axis image height (e.g., Figs. 3C, 7C).
Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein an absolute value of a scanning acceleration of the light flux on the scanned surface increases monotonically from the on-axis image height toward an outermost off-axis image height.
However, Figs. 3C and 7C, as well as respectively related Figs. 3B and 7B, appear to illustrate a monotonically increasing absolute value of the scanning acceleration, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Kimura such that an absolute value of a scanning acceleration of the light flux on the scanned surface increases monotonically from the on-axis image height toward an outermost off-axis image height, as appears to be illustrated in Figs. 3C and 7C, or at least those figures illustrate substantially the same or a function approaching, such that it would have been obvious (e.g., MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Kimura would have rendered obvious wherein the following conditions are satisfied:
PNG
media_image1.png
162
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Ya, Yb, and Yc represent coordinates in the main scanning direction of the on-axis image height, the outermost off-axis image height on one side, and the outermost off-axis image height on another side, respectively, and θ represents an angle formed by a traveling direction of a principal ray of the light flux traveling toward a predetermined image height when the light flux is deflected by the deflecting unit with respect to the optical axis of the optical system (paragraphs [0168]–[0169] teach overlapping ranges, such that the claimed range would have been obvious, MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura would have rendered obvious wherein the following conditions are satisfied:
PNG
media_image2.png
166
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Ya, Yb, and Yc represent coordinates in the main scanning direction of the on-axis image height, the outermost off-axis image height on one side, and the outermost off-axis image height on another side, respectively, θ represents an angle formed by a traveling direction of a principal ray of the light flux traveling toward a predetermined image height when the light flux is deflected by the deflecting unit with respect to the optical axis of the optical system, and θb and θc represent angles formed by the traveling direction of the principal ray of the light flux traveling toward the outermost off-axis image height on the one side and the outermost off-axis image height on the another side when the light flux is deflected by the deflecting unit with respect to the optical axis of the optical system, respectively (see Tables 1-1 and 3-1, where the listed values yield cosine values of 0.91 to 0.9996, which when multiplied by the values taught in the range of paragraphs [0168]–[0169], still substantially overlap the claimed range, such that the claimed range would have been obvious, MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6, Kimura would have rendered obvious wherein the following condition is satisfied:
0.225π < |θmax| < 0.300π,
where θmax (radian) represents an angle formed by a traveling direction of a principal ray of the light flux traveling toward the outermost off-axis image height when the light flux is deflected by the deflecting unit with respect to the optical axis of the optical system (see Tables 1-1 and 3-1, using the values provided in degrees, converting to radians, yield about 0.261π, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 7, Kimura would have rendered obvious wherein each optical surface of the optical system has a symmetrical shape in the main scanning cross section with respect to the optical axis of the optical system (e.g., paragraph [0183] suggests the design can be symmetrical).
Regarding Claim 11, Kimura would have rendered obvious an image forming apparatus comprising: the apparatus of claim 1; a developing unit configured to develop, as a toner image, an electrostatic latent image formed on the scanned surface by the apparatus; a transferring unit configured to transfer the developed toner image onto a transferred material; and a fixing unit configured to fix the transferred toner image on the transferred material (e.g., Fig. 8, paragraphs [0239]–[0259]).
Regarding Claims 13–15, see the rejections of Claims 4–6, respectively, above.
Regarding Claim 16, Kimura would have rendered obvious an image forming apparatus comprising: the apparatus of claim 1; and a printer controller configured to convert a signal output from an external apparatus into image data to input the image data to the apparatus (e.g., Fig. 8, paragraphs [0239]–[0259]).
Regarding Claims 18–20, see the rejections of Claims 4–6, respectively, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 10, 12, and 17, Kimura teaches DIST coefficients αi in Tables 1-1 and 3-1 that satisfy α2j=0, but do not satisfy α2j+1 ≤ 0, instead showing positive values for those coefficients; and also in Table 2-1, the coefficients do not satisfy α2j=0, while satisfying α2j+1 ≤ 0. There does not appear to be any motivation to choose select values from the three examples in Kimura to achieve the claimed relationship with any expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose, and does not appear to render obvious, the combination of all features recited in these claims, including those claims from which they depend, all taken together in combination as a whole, including at least “an incident optical system configured to make the light flux obliquely incident on the deflecting unit in a sub-scanning cross section”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871