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 of April 3, 2026 have been fully considered, but pertain to the previously-cited Orcutt reference, and thus are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based upon the newly-cited Shiraishi reference.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiraishi, US 2019/0293927 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Shiraishi discloses: A mirror device comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a support portion (support portions 226, 228; paragraphs [0043]-[0049] and FIG. 4 of Shiraishi);
a movable portion including a body portion including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, a mirror surface being formed on the first surface and a rib portion being formed on the second surface (movable portion 210A includes a first moveable plate 212A which has a reflecting surface 216 on its upper side and a second moveable plate 214A at its lower side [underside], the second moveable plate 214A including ribs 234A; FIGS. 4-6 of Shiraishi); and
a coupling portion that couples the movable portion to the support portion such that the movable portion is swingable around a predetermined axis (elastic members 222, 224 are configured to swingably support the movable portion 210A about a swinging axis; Abstract and paragraph [0043] and FIG. 4 of Shiraishi);
wherein the rib portion includes an extending portion extending along an outer edge of the body portion when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the second surface (second moveable plate 214A, as depicted in FIG. 4 of Shiraishi, includes an outermost periphery, i.e., the rectangle-shaped perimeter of plate 214A, which extends along an outer edge of the first movable plate 212A at least in region where it connects to elastic member 224); and
the extending portion includes a protrusion portion, the protrusion portion protruding outward from and past the outer edge of the body portion and extending along the outer edge of the body portion when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the second surface (the rectangle-shaped perimeter of plate 214A, as depicted in FIG. 4 of Shiraishi [see annotated FIG. 4 below], includes a lower-left wall which both: (A) protrudes outward from and past the outer edge of the first movable plate 212A, and (B) extends along an outer edge of the first movable plate 212A, when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the underside of first moveable plate 212A; FIGS. 4-6 of Shiraishi; the Office notes that the present claim language does not require the extending portion to be curved, nor, e.g., to match a curvature of the body portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Shiraishi discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the second surface, the rib portion (second moveable plate 214A; FIGS. 4-6 of Shiraishi) includes
a pair of first portions extending from a side of a reference position toward one side in a predetermined direction and facing each other in a direction perpendicular to the predetermined direction (when counting the internal ribs 234A of second moveable plate 214A from left to right, a first two of the ribs may be identified as the claimed “first portions”, and these first two ribs extend downward and to the left from a central bisecting line, i.e., the axial line [reference position] as defined by elastic members 222, 224, of the second moveable plate 214A, and such ribs face each other in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which they extend; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi),
a first connecting portion connected to the pair of first portions (the lower-left wall of the second moveable plate 214A may be identified as the claimed “first connecting portion”, and is connected to the first two ribs; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi),
a pair of second portions extending from the side of the reference position toward the other side in the predetermined direction and facing each other in the direction perpendicular to the predetermined direction (another two [e.g., a third and fourth] of the internal ribs 234A of second moveable plate 214A may be identified has the claimed “second portions”, and these two ribs extend from the axial line [reference position] in a direction upward and to the right, and face each other in the direction perpendicular to the direction in which they extend; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi), and
a second connecting portion connected to the pair of second portions (the upper-right wall of the perimeter of plate 214A may be identified as the claimed “second connecting portion”, and is connected to the another two [third and fourth] ribs; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi), and
the extending portion is formed of the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion (the outermost periphery of second moveable plate 214A, i.e., the rectangle-shaped perimeter of plate 214A, is formed of the lower-left wall and upper-right wall of the plate 214A; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi; the Office notes that the claim does not require that the extending portion consists of, or is formed exclusively of, the first and second connecting portions).
Regarding Claim 5, Shiraishi discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses: wherein a width of the first connecting portion is wider than a width of each of the pair of first portions, and a width of the second connecting portion is wider than a width of each of the pair of second portions (a width of the lower-left wall of the perimeter of plate 214A is wider than each of internal ribs 234A, and a width of the upper-right wall of the perimeter of plate 214A is wider than each of internal ribs 234A; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi).
Regarding Claim 6, Shiraishi discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses: wherein the pair of first portions are connected to each other on the side of the reference position, and the pair of second portions are connected to each other on the side of the reference position (the first two ribs 234A are connected to each other at the lower-left side of the central [axial] line via the lower-left wall of the perimeter of plate 214A; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi; the Office notes that the claim does not require the pair of first portions to be directly connected to each other).
Regarding Claim 8, Shiraishi discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses: wherein the reference position coincides with a center of the body portion when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the second surface (the reference position is identified as the central bisecting line, i.e., the axial line, of the second moveable plate 214A as defined by elastic members 222, 224; FIG. 4 of Shiraishi).
Regarding Claim 20, Shiraishi discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the protrusion portion is not in contact with portions other than the body portion (the lower-left wall of perimeter of plate 214A [see annotated FIG. 4 of Shiraishi above] is not in contact with the coupling portion 222, 224 nor the support portion 226, 228; the Office notes that the claimed protrusion portion is part of the extending portion which is part of the rib portion, and thus the claimed protrusion portion necessarily contacts the extending portion and the rib portion).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Shiraishi discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein when a direction parallel to the axis is a first direction, and a direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the direction perpendicular to the second surface is a second direction:
(A) a length of the protrusion portion along the outer edge of the body portion is larger than a minimum width of the coupling portion in the second direction; or
(B) a protrusion length of the protrusion portion from the outer edge of the body portion is smaller than a minimum width of the coupling portion in the second direction.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section IV, Subsection A, citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In the present case, prior art reference Shiraishi discloses all of the claimed components of the present invention, and arranged in the same manner as the claimed invention (see rejection of Claim 1 above). The only missing disclosure of Shiraishi is merely a recitation of the relative dimensions of the particular components, or portions thereof.
However, it appears that selecting the claimed relative dimensions for the device of Shiraishi would still result in a device which would perform substantially the same, i.e., selecting widths of the coupling portion (elastic members 222, 224 in Shiraishi) relative to lengths of portions of the protrusion portion (lower-left wall of the perimeter of plate 214A in Shiraishi) would still result in an optical deflector which functions via swingably supporting a reflecting surface by use of elastic members.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed relative dimensions of the protrusion portion and coupling portion for the device of Shiraishi because such device would still function in substantially the same manner, as evidenced by FIG. 4 and corresponding text of Shiraishi (but see especially Abstract and paragraphs [0043]-[0049] of Shiraishi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to include 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.
With respect to Claim 7, although the prior art discloses various mirror devices, including:
PNG
media_image2.png
270
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
76
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
72
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 9, although the prior art discloses various mirror devices, including:
PNG
media_image2.png
270
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 11, although the prior art discloses various mirror devices, including:
PNG
media_image2.png
270
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image7.png
146
574
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 21, although the prior art discloses various mirror devices, including:
PNG
media_image2.png
270
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image8.png
152
570
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 10 and 12-19, these claims each depend from either Claim 9 or Claim 11, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of Reference
Although various text and figures of the cited reference have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of the reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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 at 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 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights