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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 8/24/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-4, and 10-13 are amended, and Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/30/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (US20170097450A1, of record).
With respect to Claim 1, Hoshino discloses the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) molded with a resin ([0007]: plastic is injected into a mold to create the polygon mirror) comprising:
a plurality of reflecting surfaces ([0050]: element 110 has four reflective sides, element 111) provided in parallel to a rotational axis direction and configured to reflect a light (Fig. 3a—element 110 has four reflecting surfaces, 111, which are parallel to the rotational axis);
a first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) and a second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) perpendicular to the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—elements 112a and 112b are parallel to the rotational axis);
a plurality of gate portions (Fig. 3a—element 114, gates; [0053]) provided on the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) and being marks through which the resin is injected during molding (Fig. 3a—element 114 are injection molding marks on surface 112a) the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]); and
a recess-projection shaped (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) provided on (Fig. 3a—element 115 are disposed on element 112a) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]), and as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the rotational axis direction having at least one shape of a recess shape recessed (Fig. 3a—element 116, depression ;[0062]) recessed in the rotational axis direction from (Fig. 3a—element 116 is recessed in element 112b) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) and a projection shape (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) projected in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—element 115 project from element 112a) from the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]),
wherein each of the gate portions (Fig. 3a—element 114, gates; [0053]) has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 3a—element 114 is cylindrical),
wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 4A—viewed from above), each of a plurality of boundary virtual straight lines (Fig. 4—elements L1 and PB) is a virtual straight line connecting (i) a rotation center of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110c, center of the polygon mirror; [0055]) and (ii) a boundary of two adjacent (Fig. 4a—vertex 119D is positioned on an edge along which the adjacent reflecting surfaces 111B, 111D intersect) reflecting surfaces (Fig. 3A-- four reflecting surfaces; [0051]) with respect to the rotational direction,
wherein the recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) is equidistant from two adjacent gate portions (Fig. 3a—element 114a and 114b, gates; [0053]) with respect to the rotational direction (Fig. 4—element L1 illustrates that elements 114a and 114b are equidistant from element 115).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein a number of the gate portions is equal to a number of the reflecting surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a number of the gate portions, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction, each of the gate portions is provided at a position substantially midway, in the rotational direction, between two adjacent ones of the boundary virtual straight lines, and the recess-projection shaped portion is provided on a boundary virtual straight line that is equidistant from two adjacent gate portions with respect to the rotational direction.
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the position of each of the gate portions and the recess-projection shaped portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the pattern in which the gate portions and the recess-projection shaped portion are arranged, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the arrangement of the gates and the design of the molds are flexible (Hoshino, [0085]).
With respect to Claim 3, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector deflecting a laser light comprising:
a rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) molded with a resin ([0007]: plastic is injected into a mold to create the polygon mirror); and
a motor (Fig. 1—element 120, motor; [0046]) configured to support the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) and drive the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) ([0049]: element 120 supports and rotates element 110),
wherein the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) includes:
a plurality of reflecting surfaces ([0050]: element 110 has four reflective sides, element 111) provided in parallel to a rotational axis direction and configured to reflect a light (Fig. 3a—element 110 has four reflecting surfaces, 111, which are parallel to the rotational axis);
a first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) and a second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) perpendicular to the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—elements 112a and 112b are parallel to the rotational axis);
a plurality of gate portions (Fig. 3a—element 114, gates; [0053]) provided on the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) and being marks through which the resin is injected during molding (Fig. 3a—element 114 are injection molding marks on surface 112a) the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]); and
a recess-projection shaped (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) provided on (Fig. 3a—element 115 are disposed on element 112a) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]), and as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the rotational axis direction having at least one shape of a recess shape recessed (Fig. 3a—element 116, depression ;[0062]) recessed in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—element 116 is recessed in element 112b) from the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) and a projection shape (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) projected in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—element 115 project from element 112a) from the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]),
wherein each of the gate portions (Fig. 3a—element 114, gates; [0053]) has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 3a—element 114 is cylindrical),
wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 4A—viewed from above), each of a plurality of boundary virtual straight lines (Fig. 4—elements L1 and PB) is a virtual straight line connecting (i) a rotation center of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110c, center of the polygon mirror; [0055]) and (ii) a boundary of two adjacent (Fig. 4a—vertex 119D is positioned on an edge along which the adjacent reflecting surfaces 111B, 111D intersect) reflecting surfaces (Fig. 3A-- four reflecting surfaces; [0051]) with respect to the rotational direction,
wherein the recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) is equidistant from two adjacent gate portions (Fig. 3a—element 114a and 114b, gates; [0053]) with respect to the rotational direction (Fig. 4—element L1 illustrates that elements 114a and 114b are equidistant from element 115).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein a number of the gate portions is equal to a number of the reflecting surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a number of the gate portions, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction, each of the gate portions is provided at a position substantially midway, in the rotational direction, between two adjacent ones of the boundary virtual straight lines, and the recess-projection shaped portion is provided on a boundary virtual straight line that is equidistant from two adjacent gate portions with respect to the rotational direction.
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the position of each of the gate portions and the recess-projection shaped portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the pattern in which the gate portions and the recess-projection shaped portion are arranged, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the arrangement of the gates and the design of the molds are flexible (Hoshino, [0085]).
With respect to Claim 5, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 3, and further discloses further comprising an elastic member (Fig. 3a—element 130, pressing member; [0069]) configured to press the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) from a side of the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) toward ([0069]: 130 presses 110 towards the motor shaft, 122) the motor (Fig. 1—element 120, motor; [0046]), wherein the recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) is provided outside a portion where the elastic member (Fig. 3a—element 130, pressing member; [0069]) presses the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) with respect to a radial direction ([0069]: element 130 presses element 110 downwards in a n area beside element 115) of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]).
With respect to Claim 6, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 5 and further discloses wherein a rotor (Fig. 5—element 121, rotary shaft; [0064]) of the motor (Fig. 1—element 120, motor; [0046]) includes a rotor frame (Fig. 5—element 122a, rotor surface; [0069]).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor frame includes a marker portion to adjust a phase between the rotatable polygon mirror and the rotor with the recess-projection shaped portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the phase between the rotatable polygon mirror and the rotor adjustable, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
With respect to Claim 7, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 6 and further discloses the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) and the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first surface and the second surface is transparent.
However, these are known materials and known properties of plastic, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The benefits of these qualities include higher transmittance, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
With respect to Claim 8, Hoshino discloses the optical scanning device (Fig. 1—element 4, scanner; [0031]) comprising:
a light source (Fig.2—element 41, semiconductor laser; [0044]) configured to emit a laser light ([0044]: element 41 emits laser light); and
the optical deflector (Fig. 1—element 100, light deflector; [0043]) according to Claim 3, the optical deflector (Fig. 1—element 100, light deflector; [0043]) being configured to deflect and scan the laser light ([0049]: element 100 deflects laser light in a main scanning direction) emitted from the light source (Fig.2—element 41, semiconductor laser; [0044]).
With respect to Claim 9, Hoshino discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1—element 1, laser printer; [0031]) for forming a toner image ([0042]: a toner image is fixed on element 33) on a recording material (Fig.1 —element 33. sheet; [0042]), the image forming apparatus (Fig. 1—element 1, laser printer; [0031]) comprising:
a photosensitive member (Fig. 1—element 61, photoconductor drum; [0036]); and
the optical scanning device (Fig. 1—element 4, scanner; [0031]) according to Claim 8, the optical scanning device (Fig. 1—element 4, scanner; [0031]) being configured to scan the photosensitive member (Fig. 1—element 61, photoconductor drum; [0036]) with the laser light ([0044]: element 41 emits laser light) and form an electrostatic latent image ([0039]: an electrostatic latent image is formed on element 61) on the photosensitive member (Fig. 1—element 61, photoconductor drum; [0036]).
With respect to Claim 10, Hoshino discloses the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) molded with a resin ([0007]: plastic is injected into a mold to create the polygon mirror) comprising:
a plurality of reflecting surfaces ([0050]: element 110 has four reflective sides, element 111) provided in parallel to a rotational axis direction and configured to reflect a light (Fig. 3a—element 110 has four reflecting surfaces, 111, which are parallel to the rotational axis);
a first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) and a second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) perpendicular to the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—elements 112a and 112b are parallel to the rotational axis);
a plurality of cylindrical shape portions (Fig. 3a—element 114, gates; [0053]) provided on (Fig. 3a—element 114 are on surface 112a) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]); and
a recess-projection shaped (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) provided on (Fig. 3a—element 115 are disposed on element 112a) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]), and as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the rotational axis direction having at least one shape of a recess shape recessed (Fig. 3a—element 116, depression ;[0062]) recessed in the rotational axis direction from (Fig. 3a—element 116 is recessed in element 112b) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) and a projection shape (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) projected in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—element 115 project from element 112a) from the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]),
wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 4A—viewed from above), each of a plurality of boundary virtual straight lines (Fig. 4—elements L1 and PB) is a virtual straight line connecting (i) a rotation center of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110c, center of the polygon mirror; [0055]) and (ii) a boundary of two adjacent (Fig. 4a—vertex 119D is positioned on an edge along which the adjacent reflecting surfaces 111B, 111D intersect) reflecting surfaces (Fig. 3A-- four reflecting surfaces; [0051]) with respect to the rotational direction,
wherein the recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) is equidistant from two adjacent cylindrical shape portions (Fig. 3a—element 114a and 114b, gates; [0053]) with respect to the rotational direction (Fig. 4—element L1 illustrates that elements 114a and 114b are equidistant from element 115).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein a number of the cylindrical shape portions is equal to a number of the reflecting surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a number of the cylindrical shape portions, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction, each of the cylindrical shape portions is provided at a position substantially midway, in the rotational direction, between two adjacent ones of the boundary virtual straight lines, and the recess-projection shaped portion is provided on a boundary virtual straight line that is equidistant from two adjacent cylindrical shape portions with respect to the rotational direction.
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the position of each of the cylindrical shape portions and the recess-projection shaped portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the pattern in which the cylindrical shape portions and the recess-projection shaped portion are arranged, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the arrangement of the gates and the design of the molds are flexible (Hoshino, [0085]).
With respect to Claim 12, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector deflecting a laser light comprising:
a rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) molded with a resin ([0007]: plastic is injected into a mold to create the polygon mirror); and
a motor (Fig. 1—element 120, motor; [0046]) configured to support the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) and drive the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) ([0049]: element 120 supports and rotates element 110),
wherein the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) includes:
a plurality of reflecting surfaces ([0050]: element 110 has four reflective sides, element 111) provided in parallel to a rotational axis direction and configured to reflect a light (Fig. 3a—element 110 has four reflecting surfaces, 111, which are parallel to the rotational axis);
a first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) and a second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) perpendicular to the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—elements 112a and 112b are parallel to the rotational axis);
a plurality of cylindrical shape portions (Fig. 3a—element 114, gates; [0053]) provided on the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]); and
a recess-projection shaped (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) provided on (Fig. 3a—element 115 are disposed on element 112a) the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]), and as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the rotational axis direction having at least one shape of a recess shape recessed (Fig. 3a—element 116, depression ;[0062]) recessed in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—element 116 is recessed in element 112b) from the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]) and a projection shape (Fig. 3a—element 115, first projections; [0058]) projected in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 3a—element 115 project from element 112a) from the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) or the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]),
wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction (Fig. 4A—viewed from above), each of a plurality of boundary virtual straight lines (Fig. 4—elements L1 and PB) is a virtual straight line connecting (i) a rotation center of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110c, center of the polygon mirror; [0055]) and (ii) a boundary of two adjacent (Fig. 4a—vertex 119D is positioned on an edge along which the adjacent reflecting surfaces 111B, 111D intersect) reflecting surfaces (Fig. 3A-- four reflecting surfaces; [0051]) with respect to the rotational direction,
wherein the recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) is equidistant from two adjacent cylindrical shape portions (Fig. 3a—element 114a and 114b, gates; [0053]) with respect to the rotational direction (Fig. 4—element L1 illustrates that elements 114a and 114b are equidistant from element 115).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein a number of the cylindrical shape portions is equal to a number of the reflecting surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a number of the cylindrical shape portions, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein, as viewed in the rotational axis direction, each of the cylindrical shape portions is provided at a position substantially midway, in the rotational direction, between two adjacent ones of the boundary virtual straight lines, and the recess-projection shaped portion is provided on a boundary virtual straight line that is equidistant from two adjacent cylindrical shape portions with respect to the rotational direction.
The prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the position of each of the cylindrical shape portions and the recess-projection shaped portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the pattern in which the cylindrical shape portions and the recess-projection shaped portion are arranged, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the arrangement of the gates and the design of the molds are flexible (Hoshino, [0085]).
With respect to Claim 14, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 12, and further discloses further comprising an elastic member (Fig. 3a—element 130, pressing member; [0069]) configured to press the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]) from a side of the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) toward ([0069]: 130 presses 110 towards the motor shaft, 122) the motor (Fig. 1—element 120, motor; [0046]), wherein the recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]) is provided outside a portion where the elastic member (Fig. 3a—element 130, pressing member; [0069]) presses the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) with respect to a radial direction ([0069]: element 130 presses element 110 downwards in a n area beside element 115) of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3a—element 110, polygon mirror; [0050]).
With respect to Claim 15, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 14 and further discloses wherein a rotor (Fig. 5—element 121, rotary shaft; [0064]) of the motor (Fig. 1—element 120, motor; [0046]) includes a rotor frame (Fig. 5—element 122a, rotor surface; [0069]).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein the rotor frame includes a marker portion to adjust a phase between the rotatable polygon mirror and the rotor with the recess-projection shaped portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the phase between the rotatable polygon mirror and the rotor adjustable, since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
With respect to Claim 16, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 15 and further discloses the first surface (Fig. 3a—element 112a, first surface; [0050]) and the second surface (Fig. 3a—element 112b, second surface; [0050]).
Hoshino does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a part of the first surface and the second surface is transparent.
However, these are known materials and known properties of plastic, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The benefits of these qualities include higher transmittance, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
With respect to Claim 17, Hoshino discloses the optical scanning device (Fig. 1—element 4, scanner; [0031]) comprising:
a light source (Fig.2—element 41, semiconductor laser; [0044]) configured to emit a laser light ([0044]: element 41 emits laser light); and
the optical deflector (Fig. 1—element 100, light deflector; [0043]) according to Claim 12, the optical deflector (Fig. 1—element 100, light deflector; [0043]) being configured to deflect and scan the laser light ([0049]: element 100 deflects laser light in a main scanning direction) emitted from the light source (Fig.2—element 41, semiconductor laser; [0044]).
With respect to Claim 18, Hoshino discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1—element 1, laser printer; [0031]) for forming a toner image ([0042]: a toner image is fixed on element 33) on a recording material (Fig.1 —element 33. sheet; [0042]), the image forming apparatus (Fig. 1—element 1, laser printer; [0031]) comprising:
a photosensitive member (Fig. 1—element 61, photoconductor drum; [0036]); and
the optical scanning device (Fig. 1—element 4, scanner; [0031]) according to Claim 17, the optical scanning device (Fig. 1—element 4, scanner; [0031]) being configured to scan the photosensitive member (Fig. 1—element 61, photoconductor drum; [0036]) with a laser light ([0044]: element 41 emits laser light) and form an electrostatic latent image ([0039]: an electrostatic latent image is formed on element 61) on the photosensitive member (Fig. 1—element 61, photoconductor drum; [0036]).
Claims 2, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (US20170097450A1, of record) in view of Fukuhara (US 20160373598 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Hoshino discloses the rotatable polygon mirror according to Claim 1 and further discloses the recess-projection (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information, and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code.
Hoshino and Fukuhara are related as both pertaining to the field of molded resin pieces used in optical scanning devices. Hosino discloses a molded resin part (Fig. 7—element 119, lid; [0002]) wherein a recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 7—element 1201, marking; [0043]) is an identification portion representing information ([0050]: the lid includes an integrated marking that displays information related to a light beam), and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code ([0045]: 1201 includes a letter and symbol portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical deflector of Hoshino with the marking of Fukuhara in order to clearly display information regarding the device (Fukuhara, [0043]).
Hoshino and Fukuhara do not explicitly disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there was an art recognized need to provide information such as date and location of molding of a resin piece which is easily accessible (2) there is a finite number of places which the molding information may be made available, such as on the piece itself, within the user manual of the device, or on a company website (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to integrate molding information onto the resin piece itself because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
With respect to Claim 4, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 3 and further discloses the recess-projection (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information, and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code.
Hoshino and Fukuhara are related as both pertaining to the field of molded resin pieces used in optical scanning devices. Hosino discloses a molded resin part (Fig. 7—element 119, lid; [0002]) wherein a recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 7—element 1201, marking; [0043]) is an identification portion representing information ([0050]: the lid includes an integrated marking that displays information related to a light beam), and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code ([0045]: 1201 includes a letter and symbol portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical deflector of Hoshino with the marking of Fukuhara in order to clearly display information regarding the device (Fukuhara, [0043]).
Hoshino and Fukuhara do not explicitly disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there was an art recognized need to provide information such as date and location of molding of a resin piece which is easily accessible (2) there is a finite number of places which the molding information may be made available, such as on the piece itself, within the user manual of the device, or on a company website (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to integrate molding information onto the resin piece itself because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
With respect to Claim 11, Hoshino discloses the rotatable polygon mirror according to Claim 10 and further discloses the recess-projection (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information, and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code.
Hoshino and Fukuhara are related as both pertaining to the field of molded resin pieces used in optical scanning devices. Hosino discloses a molded resin part (Fig. 7—element 119, lid; [0002]) wherein a recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 7—element 1201, marking; [0043]) is an identification portion representing information ([0050]: the lid includes an integrated marking that displays information related to a light beam), and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code ([0045]: 1201 includes a letter and symbol portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical deflector of Hoshino with the marking of Fukuhara in order to clearly display information regarding the device (Fukuhara, [0043]).
Hoshino and Fukuhara do not explicitly disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there was an art recognized need to provide information such as date and location of molding of a resin piece which is easily accessible (2) there is a finite number of places which the molding information may be made available, such as on the piece itself, within the user manual of the device, or on a company website (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to integrate molding information onto the resin piece itself because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
With respect to Claim 13, Hoshino discloses the optical deflector according to Claim 12 and further discloses the recess-projection (Fig. 3a—element 115 and 116; [0058] and [0062]).
However, Hoshino does not disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information, and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code.
Hoshino and Fukuhara are related as both pertaining to the field of molded resin pieces used in optical scanning devices. Hosino discloses a molded resin part (Fig. 7—element 119, lid; [0002]) wherein a recess-projection shaped portion (Fig. 7—element 1201, marking; [0043]) is an identification portion representing information ([0050]: the lid includes an integrated marking that displays information related to a light beam), and is at least one of a character, a one-dimensional bar code and a two-dimensional bar code ([0045]: 1201 includes a letter and symbol portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical deflector of Hoshino with the marking of Fukuhara in order to clearly display information regarding the device (Fukuhara, [0043]).
Hoshino and Fukuhara do not explicitly disclose wherein the recess-projection shaped portion is an identification portion representing molding information.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there was an art recognized need to provide information such as date and location of molding of a resin piece which is easily accessible (2) there is a finite number of places which the molding information may be made available, such as on the piece itself, within the user manual of the device, or on a company website (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to integrate molding information onto the resin piece itself because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument Hoshino does not suggest or motivate moving the position of the gate marks.
However, Hoshino does disclose that the arrangement of the gates and the design of the molds are flexible (Hoshino, [0085]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the ring shaped arrangement of elements 114 and 115 90 degrees, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Hoshino’s statement that the arrangement of gates is flexible is an indication that the exact placement of the gates is not significant to the functioning of the polygon mirror.
The attorney’s assertion that Hoshino’s disclosure referring to an increase in flexibility in the arrangement of the gates is not an indication that the angular placement of the gates relative to the reflecting surfaces is functionally insignificant or may be arbitrarily altered is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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..
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights