DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 15-17), filed 04/29/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 as anticipated by Kurokawa have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Teramura et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 04/29/2026), as detailed below.
Promoting Compact Prosecution
Under the principles of compact prosecution, each claim in the instant patent application examined on the merits has been reviewed for compliance with every statutory requirement for patentability, even if one or more claims are found to be deficient with respect to some statutory requirement. The examiner has stated all reasons and bases for rejecting claims in the first Office action. Whenever practicable, examiner has indicated how rejections may be overcome and how problems may be resolved. Where a rejection not based on prior art is proper (lack of adequate written description, enablement, or utility, etc.), such rejection(s) is stated with a full development of the reasons rather than by a mere conclusion. Discussions between an applicant and an examiner may be indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application, especially in the case where it is not practicable to indicate within the written record how problems may be resolved and/or how rejections may be overcome. The examiner promotes interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in this application. An interview can bridge the gap between the examiner and the applicant with regard to the substantive matters at issue in an application, can help to advance prosecution and identify patentable subject matter. The applicant is invited to contact the examiner requesting an interview if the applicant believes such a discussion will advance the prosecution of this patent application or serve to develop/clarify outstanding issues in the instant application.
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 1-8 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramura et al. (US 2020/0057299 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Teramura discloses: An apparatus (FIGS. 6-7; ¶0131: optical scanning apparatus) comprising:
A. a deflector (11) including at least one deflecting surface and configured to deflect a first light flux to scan a first surface in a main scanning direction and a second light flux to scan a second surface in the main scanning direction (¶0139, 0152: The deflector 11 is rotated in a direction of an arrow A in FIGS. 6A and 6B. the light fluxes LA and LB subjected to the deflection scanning scan the first and second scanned surfaces 908 and 1008 in a direction B; see FIG. 6 showing the scanning of both surfaces by deflector 11 in the main scanning direction);
B. a first optical system (FIG. 6C: 85b) configured to guide the first light flux (LB) deflected by the deflector to the first surface (1008), wherein the first optical system includes a first imaging optical element (1006) and a second imaging optical element (1007) arranged between the first imaging optical element and the first surface on an optical path of the first optical system (¶0141: the first fθ lens 1006 and the second fθ lens 1007 is configured to condense (guide) the light flux LB deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflector 11 onto a second scanned surface 1008; see FIG. 6C); and
C. a second optical system (85a) configured to guide the second light flux (LA) deflected by the deflector (11) to the second surface (908), wherein the second optical system includes a third imaging optical element (¶0140: first fθ lens 906 is configured to condense (guide) the light flux LA deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflector 11 onto a first scanned surface 908; see FIG. 6C), and
D. wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: ф1 ≠ ф3 (¶0173: the refractive power of the first fθ lens 906 [ф3] is ϕ.sub.5 and the refractive power of the first fθ lens 1006 [ф1] is ϕ.sub.6, the optical scanning apparatus 50 of this embodiment brings about ϕ.sub.5=0.0021 and ϕ.sub.6=0.0211, thereby satisfying claimed condition); where ф1 ф2, and ф3 represent refractive powers or diffractive powers of the first, second and third imaging optical elements in a sub-scanning cross section, respectively (¶0162, 0170).
Teramura does not appear to explicitly disclose: ф2/ф1 ≤ 1 where ф1 ф2 represent refractive powers or diffractive powers of the first and second imaging optical elements in a sub-scanning cross section.
However, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section I, citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227, 783 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018), wherein the court upheld a prima facie case of obviousness in a predictable art wherein the claimed range and the prior art range of were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
In the present case, Teramura discloses a ф2/ф1 ratio ≈ 1.1 that is mathematically very close to the claimed range of ф2/ф1 ≤ 1 (¶0173: the refractive power of the first fθ lens 1006 [ф1] is ϕ.sub.6, the optical scanning apparatus 50 of this embodiment brings about ϕ.sub.6=0.0211; ¶0069, 0168: in the optical scanning apparatus 50 of this embodiment, the value of ϕ.sub.2 [deflector 1007 with power ф2] turn out to be 0.0239; thus, ф2/ф1 = 0.0239/0.0211 ≈ 1.1). Furthermore, Teramura teaches that the imaging optical elements are designed with a workable range of refractive powers such that “it is possible to reduce a difference in amount of light between irradiating light beams that irradiate the first and second scanned surfaces, respectively” and “to reduce the difference in sub-scanning magnification between the first and second imaging optical systems” while simultaneously “achieving reduction in size”, as taught in paragraphs ¶0073, 0078, 0248 of Teramura.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the apparatus of Teramura to satisfy the claimed ф2/ф1 condition, because the values are so mathematically close to each other that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and further being motivated to achieve compactness and reduction of differences in the irradiation of the scanned surfaces, as taught in paragraphs ¶0073, 0078, 0248 of Teramura.
Regarding Claim 2, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the following inequality is satisfied: ф1 > ф3 (¶0173: the refractive power of the first fθ lens 1006 [ф1] is ϕ.sub.6=0.0211, the refractive power of the first fθ lens 906 [ф3] is ϕ.sub.5=0.0021, thereby satisfying claimed condition).
Regarding Claim 3, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the second optical system (FIG. 6C: 85a) includes a fourth imaging optical element (907) arranged between the third imaging optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (¶0140: the second fθ lens 907 is configured to condense (guide) the light flux LA deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflecting unit 11 onto a first scanned surface 908; see FIG. 6C), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: ф3 ≤ ф4 where ф4 represents a refractive or diffractive power in the sub-scanning cross section of the fourth imaging optical element (¶0173: the refractive power of the first fθ lens 906 [ф3] is ϕ.sub.5=0.0021; ¶0068, 0168: in the optical scanning apparatus 50 of this embodiment, the value ϕ.sub.1 = 0.0250 [deflector 907 with power ф4], thereby satisfying claimed condition).
Regarding Claim 4, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the second optical system includes a fourth imaging optical element arranged between the third imaging optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (see rejection of claim 3 supra), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: L2/L4 > L3/L1 (see Table 12 (¶0156) disclosing d12 [L1] = 17 and L1 [L2] = 96; see Table 11 (¶0156) disclosing d12 [L3] = 17 and L1 [L4] = 80; thus 96/80 > 17/17 which satisfies claimed condition) where L1 represents a distance between an on-axis deflection point on the deflecting surface and an incident surface of the first imaging optical element on the optical path of the first optical system, L2 represents distances between an the on- axis deflection point and an incident surface of the second imaging optical elements on the optical path of the first optical system, and L3 represents a distance between the on-axis deflection point and an incident surface of the third imaging optical element on the optical path of the second optical system, and L4 represents a distances between the on-axis deflection point and an incident surface of the fourth imaging optical elements on the optical path of the second optical system.
Regarding Claim 5, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the second optical system includes a fourth imaging optical element arranged between the third imaging optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (see rejection of claim 3 supra), and wherein all of ф1, ф2, ф3 and ф4 have positive values when a refractive or diffractive power in the sub- scanning cross section of the fourth imaging optical element is represented by ф4 (¶0168, 0173: refractive power of the first fθ lens 1006 [ф1] is ϕ.sub.6=0.0211, ϕ.sub.2 [deflector 1007 with power ф2] = 0.023 [ф3] is ϕ.sub.5=0.0021, ϕ.sub.1 = 0.0250 [deflector 907 with power ф4], thereby satisfying claimed condition).
Regarding Claim 6, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the first and third imaging optical elements are an imaging optical element formed integrally with each other (¶0142: the first fθ lenses 906 and 1006; see FIG. 6C showing first and third imaging optical elements formed integrally with each other).
Regarding Claim 7, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: further comprising: a first incident optical system configured to cause the first light flux to be obliquely incident on a first deflecting surface of the deflector in the sub-scanning cross section (¶0150: the converted light flux LB is condensed in the sub-scanning direction by the second cylindrical lens 1003 and incident obliquely on the deflecting unit 11; see FIG. 6B); and a second incident optical system configured to cause the second light flux to be obliquely incident on the first deflecting surface of the deflector in the sub-scanning cross section (¶0147: the converted light flux LA is condensed in the sub-scanning direction by the first cylindrical lens 903 and obliquely incident on the deflecting unit 11; see FIG. 6A; ¶0140-141: the light flux LA deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflecting unit 11, the light flux LB deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflecting unit 11 (i.e., both incident optical systems configured to cause the first and second light flux to be obliquely incident on the first deflecting surface)).
Regarding Claim 8, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the first optical system is configured to guide the first light flux deflected by a first deflecting surface of the deflector to the first surface, and wherein the second optical system is configured to guide the second light flux deflected by the first deflecting surface of the deflector to the second surface (¶0140-41: the light flux LA is deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflecting unit 11, the light flux LB is deflected by the deflecting surface 905 of the deflecting unit 11; see FIG. 6C).
Regarding Claim 18, Teramura discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Teramura further discloses: wherein the second optical system includes a fourth imaging optical element arranged between the third imaging optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Teramura does not appear to explicitly disclose within the embodiment directed to FIGS. 6-7: wherein the apparatus further comprises a first reflecting element arranged between the second imaging optical element and the first surface on the optical path of the first optical system, and a second reflecting element arranged between the fourth imaging optical element and the second surface on the optical path of the second optical system.
However, Teramura discloses in a related embodiment the addition of a first reflecting element arranged between the second imaging optical element and the first surface on the optical path of the first optical system (FIG. 9: 1210), and a second reflecting element (FIG. 9: 910) arranged between the fourth imaging optical element and the second surface on the optical path of the second optical system (see FIG. 9; ¶0184: the optical scanning apparatus 60 of this embodiment includes the reflective members 909, 910, 1009, 1109, 1209, and 1210; ¶0196: The reflective members 909, 910, 1009, 1109, 1209, and 1210 are units for reflecting the light fluxes, which employ deposited mirrors and the like.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the apparatus of Teramura to satisfy the claimed condition, because such reflecting elements are known and would be selected to pick off and reflect each light flux (of the plurality of light fluxes) in the apparatus to its respective scanned surface, as taught in paragraphs ¶0196 of Teramura.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Tomioka et al. (US 2008/0165244 A1) discloses an optical scanning apparatus such that a plurality of scanned surfaces are along the main scanning direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 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 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights