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 .
Notice of Non-compliant Amendment
The amendment filed 06 May 2026 is non-compliant because independent Claim 1 is identified as (Currently amended) despite containing no marked changes relative to the immediate prior version, dated 10 December 2025. MPEP 714 requires all currently amended claims to include markings showing the amendments made. This creates ambiguity as to whether amendments were intended but omitted, amendments exist but were not properly added or marked, or the claim should instead have been identified as (Previously presented). The amendment filed 08 May 2026 does not cure this deficiency. Thus the amendment(s) are unclear and complicates examination since the Examiner cannot determine what subject matter, if any, was intended to be amended in independent Claim 1 from which the newly added dependent claim(s) (i.e., Claim 13) depend. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 2026 and 08 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Reconsideration of this application in view of the above amendments and below remarks is respectfully requested…Claims 1-13 are pending in the application with claim 1 being in independent form.," the Examiner traverses. See Notice of Non-compliant amendment above in the present Office action, for independent Claim 1 was marked as “Currently Amended.”
In response to the applicant's argument that "The optical fiber 9 of Kasai is not connected to the motor circuit board 51 but instead is routed around the motor circuit board 51," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Kasai explicitly teaches the board 51 is fixed on a bottom wall 1b of the housing 1 ([0045]) and the optical fiber 9 is installed in the housing 1 so that the other end face 92 is optically connected to the laser driving unit 2 ([0051), and thus, optical fiber 9 is connected to board 51 via housing 1, as taught by Kasai (fig. 1). Examiner reminds the applicant that the § 103 rejection is unpatentable over Konda in view of Kasai, not just the prior art of Kasai.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In addition, the optical fiber 9 is not configured for supplying signals to the motor circuit board 51," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, and as stated in the rejection of Claim 1, Konda discloses a cable harness (connecting harness; pg. 12) connected (control board 7 disposed in close proximity to optical scanning unit, shortening the connecting harness; pg. 12) to the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10), the cable harness (connecting harness; pg. 12) configured to supply signals (via connecting harness; pg. 12) to the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10). Examiner reminds the applicant that the § 103 rejection is unpatentable over Konda in view of Kasai, not just the prior art of Kasai.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Examiner's reasoning for modifying Kondo with Kasai…However, there is no "technical feature" disclosed in Kasai of the optical fiber overlapping the light beam. The only "technical feature" disclosed in Kasai regarding the light beam and the optical fiber is the light beam propagating through the optical fiber," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Kasai explicitly discloses an light beam aligned with the optical fiber’s internal light-guiding pathways which transfers light in or out of the fiber, and thus, the optical fiber overlaps the light beam (see examiner annotated fig. 1 of Kasai below).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner also reminds the applicant that drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2125. Examiner also submits that, in regards to applicant’s argument that ‘the only "technical feature" disclosed in Kasai regarding the light beam and the optical fiber is the light beam propagating through the optical fiber,’ if a beam propagates through an optical fiber, then the beam and the fiber share the same spatial region along the guided path, and thus, the beam propagating through the fiber entails that the fiber overlaps the beam along its path. Examiner reminds the applicant that “under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” See MPEP § 2111.01. Examiner invites applicant to provide evidence of the optical fiber not overlapping the light beam, for “if a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).” See MPEP § 2145.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applying…there would have been no motivation to modify Kondo with the optical fiber of Kasai to provide a cable harness connected to the motor circuit board for supplying signals to the motor circuit board, as recited in claim 1," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that "Applying the "technical feature" of Kasai to Kondo would suggest the scanning beam L of Kondo propagating inside an optical fiber… Thus, there would have been no motivation to modify Kondo with the optical fiber of Kasai …", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner reminds the applicant that Kasai is not relied upon for the recited claim limitation, for Konda alone discloses the limitation. The motivation provided for combining Konda in view of Kasai is for the limitation of the optical fiber overlapping the light beam, as recited in Claim 1. See previous response to arguments above and § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "As described in paragraph [0058] of the specification as filed, FIG. 8 shows…to the motor circuit board and overlapping the light beam, as recited in claim 1," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above and § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner further reminds the applicant that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “In many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP § 2141.03(I).
In response to the applicant's argument that "There would have been no motivation to modify Kondo with the optical fiber of Kasai to provide a cable harness comprising multiple electric cables configured to supply electrical signals to the motor circuit board and overlapping the light beam, as recited in claim 13," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kasai further teaches the optical fiber (9; [0051]) extending from the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) comprising a laser driving circuit of the circuit board (21; [0055]), and the optical fiber (9; [0051]) is installed in housing (1; [0051]) so that end face (92; [0051]) is optically connected to laser driving unit (2; [0051]), wherein laser driving unit (2; [0051]) is electrically connected to a controller (13; [0051]) via a cable 11 ([0051]; figs. 1, 4). Furthermore, the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0054]), the controller (25; [0054]) and the laser diode (24; [0054]) are electrically connected to each other so that the controller (25; [0054]) can control the laser emission of the laser diode (24; [0054]) and the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) is electrically connected to the connector (23; [0055]) via patterns formed in the circuit board (21; [0054-55]; figs. 1-4). The optical fiber (9; [0051]) also extends from the board (51; [0045]) comprising a motor (52; [0045]) for rotating a polygonal mirror (5; [0045]) wherein the board (51; [0045]) is fixed on a bottom wall (1b; [0045]) of the housing (1; [0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an optical fiber comprising a laser driving circuit having multiple cables and electrical connections to supply electrical signals to motor, integrated, and laser circuit boards, for the purpose of ensuring beam scanning being performed at a constant speed, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0065] and [0073-74]). Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See previous response to arguments above and § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further guidance.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 (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 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 1-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo JP S61277917 A (see machine translation) in view of Kasai US 20060049344 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Kondo discloses a scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) comprising:
a semiconductor laser (semiconductor laser; pg. 11) configured to emit light (modulated beam L emitted from the semiconductor laser 34; pg. 11);
a coupling lens (fθ lens system 2; pg. 12) configured to convert the light (scanning beam L is converted by the fθ lens system 2; pg. 12) emitted by the semiconductor laser (semiconductor laser; pg. 11) into a light beam (converted into a beam; pg. 12);
a polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pg. 11) configured to deflect the light beam (tilt of surface of rotating polygon mirror 1 is corrected; pg. 12) converted (pg. 12) by the coupling lens (fθ lens system 2; pg. 12);
a motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10) including a motor configured to rotate (synchronous motor 35 for rotating polygon mirror 1; pgs. 2 and 11) the polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pg. 11);
a cable harness (connecting harness; pg. 12) connected (control board 7 disposed in close proximity to optical scanning unit, shortening the connecting harness; pg. 12) to the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10), the cable harness (connecting harness; pg. 12) configured to supply signals (via connecting harness; pg. 12) to the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10); and
a scanning optical system (toroidal lens 41 with reflecting mirrors 3 and 4; pg. 12) configured to receive the light beam (scanning beam L incident on toroidal lens 41 via reflecting mirrors 3 and 4; pg. 12) from the polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pgs. 11-12) and to form an image (electrostatic latent image; pg. 8) on an image surface (peripheral surface of photosensitive drum 5; pg. 8),
the light beam (scanning beam L; pg. 12) directed from the coupling lens (fθ lens system 2; pg. 12) toward the polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pg. 11) when viewed from an axial direction (fig. 3) of a rotation axis (as seen in fig. 3) of the polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pg. 11).
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the cable harness overlapping the light beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kasai teaches a laser scanning device (fig. 1-10), wherein an optical fiber (9; [0051]) overlaps a light beam ([0051]; as seen in fig. 1) near an end face (91; [0051]) and another end face (92; [0051]) of the optical fiber (9; [0051]). Furthermore, an output level of a photodiode (251; [0073]) increases by an amount corresponding to a laser light emerging from the end face (92; [0073]) of the optical fiber (9; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an optical fiber overlapping a light beam and emitting laser light to a photodiode, for the purpose of obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, decreasing the number of components for a laser scanning device, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 2, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10) includes:
a board surface (surface of control board 7; pgs. 2 and 10) perpendicular (control board 7 disposed perpendicular to axial direction illustrated in fig. 3; as seen in fig. 2) to the axial direction (fig. 3);
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a board-side connector to which a harness-side connector is connected, the harness-side connector being attached to an end of the cable harness; and wherein the harness-side connector is connected to the board-side connector from a direction parallel to the board surface.
However, Kasai further teaches connectors (23, 25; [0054-55]) to which an integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) is connected (integrated laser driver IC 22 is electrically connected to connectors 23, 25; [0054-55]; figs. 1-2), the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) being attached to the end face (92; [0051]) of the optical fiber (9; [0051]; as seen in figs. 1-2); and wherein the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) is connected ([0055]; figs. 1-2) to connectors (23, 25; [0054-55]) from a direction parallel (as seen in figs. 1-2) to a circuit board (21; [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an integrated laser driver IC connected to an optical fiber attaching to a circuit board, for the purpose of controlling laser emission of a laser diode, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0054-55] and [0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 3, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 2, further comprising a frame (frame body 12; pg. 10) including a wall (side walls 12a; pg. 10) between (figs. 2-3) the polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pg. 11) and the coupling lens (fθ lens system 2; pg. 12),
wherein the wall (side walls 12a; pg. 10) has an opening (frame body 12 has a slit hole for emitting scanning beam L; pg. 10).
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the wall has an opening through which the cable harness passes.
However, Kasai further teaches a housing (1; [0044]) having a side wall (1a; [0044]), wherein the side wall (1a; [0044]) has an opening between said side wall (1a; [0044]) and an fθ lens (6; [0044]) through which the optical fiber (9; [0051]) passes (as seen in fig. 1). Furthermore, an output level of a photodiode (251; [0073]) increases by an amount corresponding to a laser light emerging from the end face (92; [0073]) of the optical fiber (9; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an optical fiber passing through a side wall of a housing, for the purpose of enabling a reflected beam to be incident on an end face of an optical fiber within a scanning range, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0051] and [0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 4, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 3, wherein an imaginary plane extending (perpendicularly; fig. 2) from the board surface (surface of control board 7; pgs. 2 and 10) passes through (fig. 2) the opening (frame body 12 has a slit hole for emitting scanning beam L; pg. 10; Kondo).
With respect to Claim 5, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1, further comprising a laser circuit board (housing 34; pg. 10) to which the semiconductor laser (semiconductor laser; pg. 11) is mounted (housing 34 houses semiconductor laser; pg. 10; mounted as seen in fig. 3).
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the cable harness is connected to the laser circuit board.
However, Kasai further teaches the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) of the circuit board (21; [0055]) being attached to the end face (92; [0051]) of the optical fiber (9; [0051]; as seen in figs. 1-2), wherein the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) comprises a laser detecting circuit ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an integrated laser driver IC comprising a laser detecting circuit connected to an optical fiber attached to a circuit board, for the purpose of controlling laser emission of a laser diode, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0054-55] and [0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 6, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1.
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the cable harness extends from the motor circuit board toward the coupling lens.
However, Kasai further teaches the optical fiber (9; [0051]) extending from the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) comprising a laser driving circuit of the circuit board (21; [0055]), wherein the optical fiber (9; [0051]) extends to and passes the fθ lens (6; [0065]; as seen in fig. 1). Furthermore, the optical fiber (9; [0051]) also extends from a board (51; [0045]) comprising a motor (52; [0045]) for rotating a polygonal mirror (5; [0045]) while extending to and passing the fθ lens (6; [0065]; as seen in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an optical fiber extending from a laser driving circuit of a circuit board towards an fθ lens, for the purpose of enabling a reflected beam to be incident on an end face of an optical fiber within a scanning range, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0051] and [0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 7, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1, and the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10).
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a first end closer to the coupling lens than the rotation axis is; and a second end farther from the coupling lens than the rotation axis is; and wherein a distance from the first end to the rotation axis is greater than a distance from the second end to the rotation axis.
However, Kasai further teaches an end surface (opposite to cable 11; [0051]; fig. 1) near the end face (92 of the optical fiber 9; [0051]) of the laser driving circuit of the circuit board (21; [0055]) being closer to the fθ lens (6; [0065]; as seen in fig. 1) than a rotational axis (fig. 1) of the polygonal mirror (5; [0045]) is, a cable (11; [0051]) end of the laser driving circuit of the circuit board (21; [0055]) being farther from the fθ lens (6; [0065]; as seen in fig. 1) than a rotational axis (fig. 1) of the polygonal mirror (5; [0045]) is, wherein the distance from the end surface (opposite to cable 11; [0051]; fig. 1) near the end face (92 of the optical fiber 9; [0051]) to the rotational axis (fig. 1) is greater than the distance from the cable (11; [0051]) end to the rotational axis (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of adjusting the positioning and distances of elements within a laser scanning device, for the purpose of ensuring beam scanning being performed at a constant speed, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0065] and [0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 10, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the image surface (peripheral surface of photosensitive drum 5; pg. 8) is a circumferential surface (pg. 8) of a photosensitive drum (photosensitive drum 5; pg. 10) provided in an image forming apparatus (image forming apparatus; pg. 8; Kondo).
With respect to Claim 11, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1, further comprising a frame (frame body 12; pg. 10) having a first recess (back wall towards air blower 33; as seen in fig. 3) and a second recess (middle of frame body 12; as seen in fig. 3), the first recess opening (comprising rotating polygon mirror 1; fig. 3) on one side in the axial direction (backside of frame body 12; fig. 3), the second recess opening (comprising fθ lens system 2; fig. 3) on another side (middle portion of frame body 12; fig. 3) in the axial direction (fig. 3),
wherein the polygon mirror (rotating polygon mirror 1; pg. 11) is disposed in the first recess (back wall towards air blower 33; as seen in fig. 3); and
wherein the coupling lens (fθ lens system 2; pg. 12) is disposed in the second recess (middle of frame body 12; as seen in fig. 3; Kondo).
With respect to Claim 12, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 11, wherein the frame (frame body 12; pg. 10) includes a wall (side walls 12a; pg. 10) located between (in axial direction; fig. 3) the first recess (back wall towards air blower 33; as seen in fig. 3) and the second recess (middle of frame body 12; as seen in fig. 3); and
wherein the wall has an opening (frame body 12 has a slit hole for emitting scanning beam L; pg. 10).
Konda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the wall has an opening through which the cable harness passes.
However, Kasai further teaches a housing (1; [0044]) having a side wall (1a; [0044]), wherein the side wall (1a; [0044]) has an opening between said side wall (1a; [0044]) and an fθ lens (6; [0044]) through which the optical fiber (9; [0051]) passes (as seen in fig. 1). Furthermore, an output level of a photodiode (251; [0073]) increases by an amount corresponding to a laser light emerging from the end face (92; [0073]) of the optical fiber (9; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an optical fiber passing through a side wall of a housing, for the purpose of enabling a reflected beam to be incident on an end face of an optical fiber within a scanning range, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0051] and [0073-74]).
With respect to Claim 13, Kondo in view of Kasai teaches the scanning optical device (laser recording device that scans a laser beam; pg. 1) according to claim 1, the cable harness (connecting harness; pg. 12) connected (control board 7 disposed in close proximity to optical scanning unit, shortening the connecting harness; pg. 12) to the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10), the cable harness (connecting harness; pg. 12) configured to supply signals (via connecting harness; pg. 12) to the motor circuit board (control board 7 within device to control components; pgs. 2 and 10).
Kondo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the cable harness comprises multiple electric cables configured to supply electrical signals to the motor circuit board.
However, Kasai further teaches the optical fiber (9; [0051]) extending from the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) comprising a laser driving circuit of the circuit board (21; [0055]), and the optical fiber (9; [0051]) is installed in housing (1; [0051]) so that end face (92; [0051]) is optically connected to laser driving unit (2; [0051]), wherein laser driving unit (2; [0051]) is electrically connected to a controller (13; [0051]) via a cable 11 ([0051]; figs. 1, 4). Furthermore, the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0054]), the controller (25; [0054]) and the laser diode (24; [0054]) are electrically connected to each other so that the controller (25; [0054]) can control the laser emission of the laser diode (24; [0054]) and the integrated laser driver IC (22; [0055]) is electrically connected to the connector (23; [0055]) via patterns formed in the circuit board (21; [0054-55]; figs. 1-4). The optical fiber (9; [0051]) also extends from the board (51; [0045]) comprising a motor (52; [0045]) for rotating a polygonal mirror (5; [0045]) wherein the board (51; [0045]) is fixed on a bottom wall (1b; [0045]) of the housing (1; [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning optical device of Kondo to include the technical feature of an optical fiber comprising a laser driving circuit having multiple cables and electrical connections to supply electrical signals to motor, integrated, and laser circuit boards, for the purpose of ensuring beam scanning being performed at a constant speed, obtaining timing information for controlling an emission of a laser beam, and reducing manufacturing costs, as taught by Kasai ([0065] and [0073-74]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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:
The closest prior art of Kondo JP S61277917 A in view of Kasai US 20060049344 A1 taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of Claims 8 and 9, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be improper.
With respect to Claim 8, the prior art of Kondo in view of Kasai fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the specific arrangement wherein the scanning optical device according to claim 1, further comprises: an other-side semiconductor laser located away from the one-side semiconductor laser in a direction perpendicular to the light beam when viewed from the axial direction; an other-side coupling lens configured to convert light emitted by the other-side semiconductor laser into a light beam; and a capacitor protruding in the axial direction from the motor circuit board; and wherein, when viewed from the axial direction, the capacitor is located between the light beam directed from the one-side coupling lens toward the polygon mirror and the light beam directed from the other-side coupling lens toward the polygon mirror, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 9, the prior art of Kondo in view of Kasai fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the specific arrangement wherein the capacitor includes a tip located opposite to the motor circuit board; and wherein at least one of a plurality of light beams passes between the motor circuit board and the tip of the capacitor with respect to the axial direction, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of Claims 1 and 8.
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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 20 July 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights