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.
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, the “meshing connection” of the transmission gear with “a rotating shaft of an external motor” as claimed in claim 2, “the curvature radius R11 of a side of the first lens near the light source generator is less than the curvature radius R12 of the other side of the first lens” as claimed in claim 9, and “the curvature radius R21 of a side of the second lens near the scanning galvanometer is greater than the curvature radius R22 of the other side of the second lens” as claimed in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites that “the focal length f1 of the first lens satisfies f1 > 0.” While it is clear that f1 and f1 are intended to be the same value, the notation of the “1” as a subscript is inconsistent in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as reciting that “the focal length f1 of the first lens satisfies f1 > 0.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a large-angle laser scanning projection device.” The term “large-angle” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large-angle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of angles should be considered a “large-angle,” and what structure is required by the claims to achieve such a “large-angle.” For the purposes of examination, any laser scanning projection device will be interpreted as “a large-angle laser scanning projection device.”
Claim 1 further recites “a scanning galvanometer, which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the first lens and is capable of realizing a rotating motion and used to reflect the laser beam incident on a surface of the scanning galvanometer to a second lens at a different angle when carrying out the rotating motion.” However, it is unclear what structure is required such that the galvanometer is “capable of realizing a rotating motion.” Specifically, any device could be capable of realizing a rotating motion, and it is unclear if some additional structure is intended to be required by the claim. Moreover, it is unclear how the galvanometer can be “used to reflect the laser beam incident on a surface of the scanning galvanometer to a second lens at a different angle when carrying out the rotating motion.” Specifically, it is unclear what the “angle” should be “different” with respect to and it is unclear that any rotating motion should be positively required.
For the purposes of examination, any scanning galvanometer positioned with the laser beam incident on a surface thereof and reflecting the laser beam will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 2 recites that “a transmission gear is mounted on the back side of the scanning galvanometer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the back side of the scanning galvanometer” and it is unclear which side of the scanning galvanometer should be considered “the back side.” For the purposes of examination, any transmission gear mounted to the scanning galvanometer will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 2 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites that “the transmission gear is used for a meshing connection with a rotating shaft of an external motor.” However, it is unclear how a transmission gear can be “used for a meshing connection with a rotating shaft of an external motor.” Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require the rotational motor, or if the claim merely requires a structure that can be used with an external motor. Moreover, as the gear and the rotating shaft have not been provided with any structure, it is unclear how such a gear can be “used for a meshing connection,” as it is unclear what structure of the gear and/or shaft can form a “meshing connection.”
For the purposes of examination, any transmission gear connected with a rotating shaft of a motor will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 6 recites that “the focal length f1 of the first lens satisfies f1 > 0.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the focal length f1 of the first lens.” It is unclear if the focal length should be a focal length of the first lens as a whole, a focal length of a surface of the lens, or some other focal length. For the purposes of examination, “the focal length f1 of the first lens” will be interpreted as “a focal length f1 of the first lens.”
Claims 7-8 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 6 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 7 recites that “the focal length f2 of the first lens satisfies f2 < 0.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the focal length f2 of the first lens.” It is unclear if “the focal length f2 of the first lens” should be the focal length f1 defined in claim 6, a different focal length of the first lens, or some other focal length. Moreover it is unclear how the focal length of the first lens can simultaneously be greater than zero, as required by claim 6, and less than 0, as required by claim 7. As such, it appears that the focal length referred to in claim 7 is intended to be a focal length of a different lens element. For the purposes of examination, “the focal length f2 of the first lens” will be interpreted as “a focal length f2 of the second lens.”
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 7 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 9 recites that “the curvature radius R11 of a side of the first lens near the light source generator is less than the curvature radius R12 of the other side of the first lens.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the curvature radius R11”, “the curvature radius R12”, and “the other side of the first lens.” It is unclear how the curvature radii should be defined, as a surface can have multiple radii. Moreover, it is unclear what should be considered “the other side,” as a lens is a three dimensional object with more than two sides.
Furthermore, the term “near the light source” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if “near” is simply referring to the positional arrangement of the side of the lens, or if the term is referring to a specific distance from the light source generator.
Additionally, as a curvature radius has a value that is positive or negative, and the sign of the curvature radius depends upon the reference frame (e.g. a positive curvature radius when viewed from a light source side would be a negative curvature radius when viewed from an opposite side), it is unclear how the two curvature radii should be defined such that one is “less than” the other. It is unclear if the claim is intended to require that the absolute value of the curvature radius R11 is less than the absolute value of the curvature radius R12, or if the claim is intended to define the curvature radii from a specific frame of reference.
For the purposes of examination, any lens having a curvature radius, or an absolute value of a curvature radius, of a surface facing the light source generator which is less than a curvature radius, or an absolute value of a curvature radius,” of a surface opposite to the light source generator will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 recites that “the curvature radius R21 of a side of the second lens near the scanning galvanometer is greater than the curvature radius R22 of the other side of the second lens” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the curvature radius R21”, “the curvature radius R22”, and “the other side of the second lens.” It is unclear how the curvature radii should be defined, as a surface can have multiple radii. Moreover, it is unclear what should be considered “the other side,” as a lens is a three dimensional object with more than two sides.
Furthermore, the term “near the scanning galvanometer” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if “near” is simply referring to the positional arrangement of the side of the lens, or if the term is referring to a specific distance from the scanning galvanometer.
Additionally, as a curvature radius has a value that is positive or negative, and the sign of the curvature radius depends upon the reference frame (e.g. a positive curvature radius when viewed from a scanning galvanometer side would be a negative curvature radius when viewed from an opposite side), it is unclear how the two curvature radii should be defined such that one is “greater than” the other. It is unclear if the claim is intended to require that the absolute value of the curvature radius R21 is greater than the absolute value of the curvature radius R22, or if the claim is intended to define the curvature radii from a specific frame of reference.
For the purposes of examination, any lens having a curvature radius, or an absolute value of a curvature radius, of a surface facing the scanning galvanometer which is greater than a curvature radius, or an absolute value of a curvature radius,” of a surface opposite to the scanning galvanometer will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grafton (U.S. Patent No. 4,070,089).
Regarding claim 1, Grafton teaches a large-angle laser scanning projection device, comprising:
a light source generator (10, 12), which is used to emit a laser beam outwards (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 32-64; C. 5, L. 22-40);
a first lens (26), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the light source generator and used to change a divergence angle of the laser beam (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 32-64; C. 4, L. 66 – C. 5, L. 21);
a scanning galvanometer (44), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the first lens (26) and is capable of realizing a rotating motion and used to reflect the laser beam incident on a surface of the scanning galvanometer to a second lens (40) at a different angle when carrying out the rotating motion (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 32 – C. 4, L. 28; C. 5, L. 22-40); and
the second lens (40), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the scanning galvanometer and used to change a divergence angle of the laser beam which is reflected by the scanning galvanometer (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 32 – C. 4, L. 28; C. 4, L. 66 – C. 5, L. 40).
Regarding claim 2, Grafton teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 1, as above.
Grafton further teaches that a transmission gear (68) is mounted on the back side of the scanning galvanometer (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 65 – C. 4, L. 28).
Regarding claim 3, Grafton teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 2, as above.
Grafton further teaches that the transmission gear and the scanning galvanometer have an integrated structure (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 65 – C. 4, L. 28).
Regarding claim 4, Grafton teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 2, as above.
Grafton further teaches that the transmission gear (26) is used for a meshing connection with a rotating shaft (70) of an external motor (56) (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 65 – C. 4, L. 28).
Regarding claim 5, Grafton teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 2, as above.
Grafton further teaches that the transmission gear has a semicircular structure (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 65 – C. 4, L. 28).
Regarding claim 6, Grafton teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 1, as above.
Grafton further teaches that the focal length f1 of the first lens satisfies f1 > 0 (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 32 – C. 4, L. 28; C. 4, L. 66 – C. 5, L. 40).
Regarding claim 7, Grafton teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 6, as above.
Grafton further teaches that the focal length f2 of the first lens satisfies f2 < 0 (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 32 – C. 4, L. 28; C. 4, L. 66 – C. 5, L. 40).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamano et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,810,880; hereinafter – “Hamano”).
Regarding claim 1, Hamano teaches a large-angle laser scanning projection device, comprising:
a light source generator (11), which is used to emit a laser beam outwards (See e.g. Figs. 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-45);
a first lens (12), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the light source generator and used to change a divergence angle of the laser beam (See e.g. Figs. 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-52; C. 8, L. 25 – C. 9, L. 29; C. 14, L. 27 – C. 15, L. 10; C. 19, L. 29 – C. 21, L. 20; C. 21, L. 47 – C. 22, L. 31; C. 30, L. 25 – C. 31, L. 57);
a scanning galvanometer (13), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the first lens (26) and is capable of realizing a rotating motion and used to reflect the laser beam incident on a surface of the scanning galvanometer to a second lens (14) at a different angle when carrying out the rotating motion (See e.g. Figs. 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-45); and
the second lens (14), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of the scanning galvanometer and used to change a divergence angle of the laser beam which is reflected by the scanning galvanometer (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, and 26; C. 9, L. 30 – C. 10, L. 54; C. 23, L. 66 – C. 24, L. 55; C. 32, L. 34 – C. 33, L. 27).
Regarding claim 6, Hamano teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 1, as above.
Hamano further teaches that the focal length f1 of the first lens satisfies f1 > 0 (See e.g. Figs. 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-52; C. 8, L. 25 – C. 9, L. 29; C. 14, L. 27 – C. 15, L. 10; C. 19, L. 29 – C. 21, L. 20; C. 21, L. 47 – C. 22, L. 31; C. 30, L. 25 – C. 31, L. 57).
Regarding claim 7, Hamano teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 6, as above.
Hamano further teaches that the focal length f2 of the first lens satisfies f2 < 0 (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-52; C. 8, L. 25 – C. 10, L. 54; C. 14, L. 27 – C. 15, L. 10; C. 19, L. 29 – C. 21, L. 20; C. 21, L. 47 – C. 22, L. 31; C. 23, L. 66 – C. 24, L. 55; C. 30, L. 25 – C. 31, L. 57; C. 32, L. 34 – C. 33, L. 27).
Regarding claim 8, Hamano teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 7, as above.
Hamano further teaches that f1 > -2f2 (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-52; C. 8, L. 25 – C. 10, L. 54; C. 14, L. 27 – C. 15, L. 10; C. 19, L. 29 – C. 21, L. 20; C. 21, L. 47 – C. 22, L. 31; C. 23, L. 66 – C. 24, L. 55; C. 30, L. 25 – C. 31, L. 57; C. 32, L. 34 – C. 33, L. 27).
Regarding claim 9, Hamano teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 1, as above.
Hamano further teaches that the curvature radius R11 of a side of the first lens near the light source generator is less than the curvature radius R12 of the other side of the first lens (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-52; C. 8, L. 25 – C. 10, L. 54; C. 14, L. 27 – C. 15, L. 10; C. 19, L. 29 – C. 21, L. 20; C. 21, L. 47 – C. 22, L. 31; C. 23, L. 66 – C. 24, L. 55; C. 30, L. 25 – C. 31, L. 57; C. 32, L. 34 – C. 33, L. 27).
Regarding claim 10, Hamano teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 1, as above.
Hamano further teaches that the curvature radius R21 of a side of the second lens near the scanning galvanometer is greater than the curvature radius R22 of the other side of the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26; C. 5, L. 22-52; C. 8, L. 25 – C. 10, L. 54; C. 14, L. 27 – C. 15, L. 10; C. 19, L. 29 – C. 21, L. 20; C. 21, L. 47 – C. 22, L. 31; C. 23, L. 66 – C. 24, L. 55; C. 30, L. 25 – C. 31, L. 57; C. 32, L. 34 – C. 33, L. 27).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,115,146; hereinafter – “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 2, Hamano teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 1, as above.
Hamano fails to explicitly disclose that a transmission gear is mounted on the back side of the scanning galvanometer.
However, Suzuki teaches a scanning-type image reading device comprising a scanning galvanometer (2), which is arranged on an outlet optical path of a first lens (3) and is capable of realizing a rotating motion and used to reflect a laser beam incident on a surface of the scanning galvanometer to a second lens (141) at a different angle when carrying out the rotating motion, wherein a transmission gear (82) is mounted on the back side (20, 120, 130) of the scanning galvanometer (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 6-11; C. 8, L. 20 – C. 9, L. 19).
Suzuki teaches this transmission gear “to provide a scanning-type image reading device employing the camera-type scanning system that is more compact, less expensive, and provides high image quality” (C. 1, L. 57-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection device of Hamano with the transmission gear of Suzuki “to provide a scanning-type image reading device employing the camera-type scanning system that is more compact, less expensive, and provides high image quality,” as taught by Suzuki (C. 1, L. 57-60).
Regarding claim 3, Hamano in view of Suzuki teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 2, as above.
Suzuki further teaches that the transmission gear and the scanning galvanometer have an integrated structure (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 6-11; C. 8, L. 20 – C. 9, L. 19).
Regarding claim 4, Hamano in view of Suzuki teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 2, as above.
Suzuki further teaches that the transmission gear (82) is used for a meshing connection with a rotating shaft (72, 76) of an external motor (70) (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 6-11; C. 8, L. 20 – C. 9, L. 19).
Regarding claim 5, Hamano in view of Suzuki teaches the large-angle laser scanning projection device according to claim 2, as above.
Suzuki further teaches that the transmission gear (82) has a semicircular structure (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 6-11; C. 8, L. 20 – C. 9, L. 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chong (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0251354) teaches a compact beam steering mechanism and system with a similar gear on a scanning galvanometer.
Kadowaki (U.S. Patent No. 10,838,213) teaches a display device comprising a laser, an input lens, a scanning galvanometer, and an output lens.
Ho et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,854,281) teaches a Head Up Display comprising a similar mirror on a semicircular gear.
Ohnishi (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2012/0300276) teaches an optical beam scanning device and image display device using the same having a laser, a scanning galvanometer, and first and second lenses.
Koguchi (U.S. Patent No. 6,243,190) teaches a light scanning apparatus with a similar gear and motor arrangement.
Mushiake et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,128,120) teaches a scanning optical system with a similar arrangement of lenses and a transmission gear.
Minoura (U.S. Patent No. 4,390,235) teaches a multibeam scanning apparatus provided with a function of changing magnification with similar lenses and a gear.
Zanoni (U.S. Patent No. 3,961,838) teaches an apparatus for producing a scanning laser beam of constant linear velocity having a scanning mirror on a transmission gear between two lenses.
Gazard et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,719,780) teaches a recording and display laser scanning system using photochromic substrates including a scanning mirror on a transmission gear between two lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights