DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 09/11/2023, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 11/12/2025. The Office required restriction between the invention of Group I (Claims 1-8 and 18), the invention of Group II (Claims 9-17) and the invention of Group III (Claims 19-20).
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Accordingly, Claims 1-8 and 18 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 9-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 09/11/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 09/13/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
A. the first, second, third and fourth optical element(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 18. No new matter should be entered. The Examiner notes that the as-filed specification discloses ‘imaging’ and ‘incident’ optical element(s), but appears to be silent with regard to ‘the optical elements’ as recited in the claims.
B. the main scanning direction must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1. No new matter should be entered.
C. the power(s) in a sub-scanning cross section must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 limitation “a deflecting unit configured to deflect…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted to correspond to a polygon mirror, for example (see ¶0037, 0105, 0180 of originally-filed specification). For purposes of prosecution, the Examiner will consider known equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1. Claim 1 recites the limitation: “the following inequalities are satisfied: ф1 ≠ ф3; ф2/ф1 ≤ 1; where ф1 ф2, and ф3 represent powers in a sub-scanning cross section of the first, second and third optical elements, respectively”. Similarly, claims 2-3 and 5 recite inequalities directed to powers in a sub-scanning cross section of the optical elements. It is unclear what is meant by ‘powers’ in a particular ‘sub-scanning cross section’ of the claimed optical elements. The as-filed specification discloses both refractive and diffractive powers of the optical elements, thereby resulting in confusion such that the metes and bounds of the claimed feature cannot be determined. Furthermore, the claims fail to specify what each optical element actually is, thereby rendering the claim scope unascertainable and therefore indefinite (see also corresponding Drawings objections supra). Additionally, optical elements’ cross sections by themselves do not have ‘powers’ and the as-filed specification fails to elucidate such limitations as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume these limitations are inherent will be treated as: the first, second third or the fourth optical element possess a refractive power.
2. Claim 4 recites the limitation: “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: L2/L4 > L3/L1 where L1 and L2 represent distances between an on-axis deflection point of the deflecting unit, and the first and second optical elements on the optical path of the first optical system, respectively, and L3 and L4 represent distances between the on-axis deflection point of the deflecting unit, and the third and fourth optical elements on the optical path of the second optical system, respectively”. It is unclear how each of the distances L1 through L4 are defined, e.g., is L1 the distance between the deflecting unit and the object side surface of the first optical element, or to the image side surface of the first optical element, or to the object side surface of the second optical element, or to the image side surface of the second optical element? The similar issue arises for each of L2, L3 and L4. It is further unclear where the on-axis deflection point is located (since the deflecting unit appears to correspond to a polygonal reflector possessing a plurality of deflecting surfaces), along with which surface of the optical elements define the other endpoint of each distance, thereby rendering both endpoints of each of the distances L1-L4 unclear. Thus, the calculation of each of the distances L1-L4 cannot be ascertained in addition to the claimed ratio inequality condition, and the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume these limitations are inherent.
Claims 2-8 and 18 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurokawa (US 2015/0369971 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Kurokawa discloses: An apparatus (¶0057: optical scanning apparatus) comprising:
A. a deflecting unit (50) 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 (¶0162: light fluxes RA are deflected by the deflection unit 50 are condensed onto a scanned surface 70A [first surface] by the imaging optical system LB1. Light fluxes RB are deflected by the deflection unit 50 are condensed onto a scanned surface 70B [second surface] by the imaging optical system LB2; see FIGS. 19-21 showing the scanning of both surfaces in a main scanning direction Y);
B. a first optical system (FIGS. 19-20: LB1; ¶0157, 0160-62, 0165) configured to guide the first light flux (RA) deflected by the deflecting unit to the first surface (70A), wherein the first optical system includes a first optical element (LB1: 61), and a second optical element (LB1: 62A) arranged between the first optical element and the first surface on an optical path of the first optical system (see FIG. 20 showing a second optical element 62A arranged between the first optical element 61 and the first surface 70A on an optical path of the first optical system LB1); and
C. a second optical system (FIGS. 19-20: LB2; ¶0157, 0160-62, 0165) configured to guide the second light flux (RB) deflected by the deflecting unit (50) to the second surface (70B), wherein the second optical system includes a third optical element (LB2: 61), and
D. wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: ф1 ≠ ф3; ф2/ф1 ≤ 1; where ф1 ф2, and ф3 represent powers in a sub-scanning cross section of the first, second and third optical elements, respectively (¶0067: imaging lens 61 condenses the light fluxes reflected and deflected by the deflection unit 50 onto a scanned surface 70; ¶0138-39, 0141: the power of the second imaging lens 62; FIGS. 17A-B; see corresponding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the following inequality is satisfied: ф1 > ф3 (¶0067: imaging lens 61 condenses the light fluxes reflected and deflected by the deflection unit 50 onto a scanned surface 70; ¶0138-39, 0141: the power of the second imaging lens 62; FIGS. 17A-B; see corresponding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the second optical system (LB2) includes a fourth optical element (62B) arranged between the third optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (¶0157, 0160-62, 0165; FIGS. 19-20: LB2 (62B); see FIG. 20 showing a fourth optical element 62B arranged between the third optical element 61 and the second surface 70B), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: ф3 ≤ ф4 where ф4 represents a power in the sub-scanning cross section of the fourth optical element (¶0067: imaging lens 61 condenses the light fluxes reflected and deflected by the deflection unit 50 onto a scanned surface 70; ¶0138-39, 0141: the power of the second imaging lens 62; FIGS. 17A-B; see corresponding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the second optical system includes a fourth optical element arranged between the third optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (¶0157, 0160-62, 0165; FIGS. 19-20: LB2 (62B); see FIG. 20 showing a fourth optical element 62B arranged between the third optical element 61 and the second surface 70B), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: L2/L4 > L3/L1 where L1 and L2 represent distances between an on-axis deflection point of the deflecting unit, and the first and second optical elements on the optical path of the first optical system, respectively, and L3 and L4 represent distances between the on-axis deflection point of the deflecting unit, and the third and fourth optical elements on the optical path of the second optical system, respectively (¶0166-67, 0169: values in third embodiment is same as first embodiment; see Table 1 of ¶0081 disclosing L1 = 20, L2 = 76.5, L3 = 20; see FIG. 20 showing L4 from 50 to 62B, where L2 > L4, thereby satisfying claimed inequality).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the second optical system (FIGS. 19-20: LB2; ¶0157, 0160-62, 0165) includes a fourth optical element (62B) arranged between the third optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (see FIG. 20 showing a fourth optical element 62B arranged between the third optical element 61 and the second surface 70B), and wherein all of ф1, ф2, ф3 and ф4 have positive values when a power in the sub- scanning cross section of the fourth optical element is represented by ф4 (¶0067: imaging lens 61 condenses the light fluxes reflected and deflected by the deflection unit 50 onto a scanned surface 70; ¶0138-39, 0141: the power of the second imaging lens 62; FIGS. 17A-B; see corresponding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Regarding Claim 6, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the first and third optical elements are an optical element formed integrally with each other (¶0085, 0136, 0165: optical surfaces 61a, 61b of the first imaging lens 61).
Regarding Claim 7, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa 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 deflecting unit in the sub-scanning cross section; and a second incident optical system configured to cause the second light flux to be obliquely incident on the first deflecting surface of the deflecting unit in the sub-scanning cross section (¶0072, 0074: obliquely-incident optical systems; ¶0153: the light fluxes emitted from the two light-emitting parts A and B deflected by the deflecting surface 51 [first deflecting surface] at the same timing are imaged on the scanned surface 70; see FIG. 20).
Regarding Claim 8, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the first optical system is configured to guide the first light flux deflected by a first deflecting surface of the deflecting unit 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 deflecting unit to the second surface (¶0153: the light fluxes emitted from the two light-emitting parts A and B deflected by the deflecting surface 51 [first deflecting surface] at the same timing are imaged on the scanned surface 70; ¶0157, 0160-62, 0165; see FIG. 20).
Regarding Claim 18, Kurokawa discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kurokawa further discloses: wherein the second optical system (LB2) includes a fourth optical element (62B) arranged between the third optical element and the second surface on an optical path of the second optical system (¶0157, 0160-62, 0165; FIGS. 19-20: LB2 (62B); see FIG. 20 showing a fourth optical element 62B arranged between the third optical element 61 and the second surface 70B), and wherein the apparatus further comprises a first reflecting element arranged between the second optical element and the first surface on the optical path of the first optical system (¶0160: the imaging optical system LB1 includes folding mirror M1), and a second reflecting element arranged between the fourth optical element and the second surface on the optical path of the second optical system (¶0160: imaging optical system LB2 includes folding mirror M3; ¶0173: the folding mirrors configured to fold the optical path along the sub-scanning direction are arranged in the optical paths between the second imaging lenses 62A to 62B and the scanned surfaces 70A to 70B).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Kondo (US 2005/0220504 A1), Yamaguchi et al. (US 5,818,506 A), and Shimomura (US 8,531,738 B2) all disclose an apparatus comprising: a deflecting unit configured to deflect a first light flux to scan a first surface and a second light flux to scan a second surface, a first optical system, a second optical system, wherein the first optical system includes a first optical element and a second optical element, wherein the second optical system includes a third optical element, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
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 930-1800 (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 at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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