DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The two information disclosure statement(s) filed on 08/11/2025 and 10/02/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
2. The information disclosure statement filed on 01/05/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, the reference listed under Non-Patent Literature Document, titled “Written Opinion dated August 30, 2022…”. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority for U.S. National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 filed on 07/13/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55(f)(2).
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 137.
2. 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:
i. a rotation axis of the mirror portion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1;
ii. another rotation axis of the mirror portion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 6;
iii. scanning regions of a light beam overlap each other in a one-side end region must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 8;
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Typo of improper grammar/punctuation in Claim 3 which renders the meaning of the claim limitation unclear should be corrected to: “a rigidity of the one setting region is different in each of the following states: when the voltage is applied only to the first rigidity changing piezoelectric element; when the voltage is applied only to the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element; when the voltage is applied to both the first rigidity changing piezoelectric element and the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,362 B2 of Watanabe (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the elements of Claims 1 and 5 of the present application is met by corresponding Claims 1-2 of the reference patent (see table of correlation below).
Claim Number of Present Application
Claim Element of Present Application
Corresponding Claim Language of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,362 B2 of Watanabe
1
A MEMS optical deflector comprising: a mirror portion configured to reflect a light beam;
a one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar extending from one end portion and the other end portion of the mirror portion along a rotation axis of the mirror portion, respectively;
a one-side support and the other-side support configured to intersect the one- side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar in a one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion in a vertical direction with respect to the rotation axis, respectively, and rotatably support the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar around the rotation axis in the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion, respectively;
actuators configured to rotate the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar around the rotation axis in the one-side intersection portion and the other- side intersection portion, respectively;
and a rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in at least one setting region of a one-side setting region and the other-side setting region including at least a part of the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion in the vertical direction in the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar in a center range, respectively to change a rigidity of the one setting region when a voltage is applied.
Claims 1 & 2 recite:
An optical scanning device comprising: an optical deflector which has a mirror part (claim 1),
the optical deflector has a pair of torsion bars which protrude from both sides of the mirror part and are coupled to the support part (claim 1),
and the piezoelectric actuator is coupled to an intermediate portion of the pair of torsion bars on a first axis serving as the rotation axis, and is coupled to the support part on a second axis orthogonal to the first axis at a center of the mirror part (claim 2);
a plurality of piezoelectric divided sections coupled in series, and includes a piezoelectric actuator which is interposed between the support part and the mirror part and rotates the mirror part about a rotation axis in a reciprocating manner (claim 1);
a driving unit which supplies a first driving voltage and a second driving voltage to a first set [actuators] and a second set of piezoelectric [rigidity changing piezoelectric element] divided sections so as to provide a relationship of opposite phases from each other in the case where the plurality of piezoelectric divided sections are divided alternately into the first set and the second set in an arrangement order toward an acting end from a proximal end of the optical deflector (claim 1);
5
wherein the one-side support and the other-side support form one annular-shaped body that surrounds the mirror portion from an outside, and the actuators are piezoelectric actuators formed in the annular-shaped body
Claims 1 & 2 recite:
wherein the support part annularly surrounds the mirror part, and the piezoelectric actuator is an annular piezoelectric actuator which annularly surrounds the mirror part on an inner peripheral side of the support part (claim 2)
The Examiner notes that the preamble term “MEMS” as recited in instant claim 1 merely states a feature that does not limit the claim scope, since the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure of the claimed invention, thus rendering said preamble term to be of no significance to the claim construction; see MPEP § 2111.02, Section II, citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785 and Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294-96, 70 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Secondly, the Examiner notes that it is commonly known in the art that all piezoelectric elements possess a change in rigidity (measured by strain and proportional to Young’s modulus) based on applied voltage; thus, the driving voltages of the second set of piezoelectric sections as claimed in claim 1 of the reference patent satisfy the instant claimed limitation (of claim 1) directed to the applied voltage on the rigidity changing piezoelectric element.
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 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:
Claims 7-8 limitation “a control unit configured to control and/or compare…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the controlling and/or comparing function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Claim 7 limitation “a frequency detector configured to detect…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the detecting function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
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 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. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, Claim 1 limitation: “a rigidity changing piezoelectric element” is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on the type of piezoelectric element that performs the claimed function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the piezoelectric element to perform the function of changing rigidity of said element. Furthermore, there exists an unnumerable quantity of materials (e.g., material classes within ceramics, semiconductors, crystalline materials, organic and inorganic polymers, etc.) that may be utilized as rigidity changing piezoelectric elements. The as-filed specification of 01/05/2024 fails to elucidate any such structure/material and merely recites in ipsis verbis the generic claim language. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering Claim 1 as indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “a piezoelectric element”.
2. Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a one-side support and the other-side support configured to…rotatably support the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar around the rotation axis in the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion, respectively”. It is unclear what is meant by the term ‘rotatably support’, i.e., does the support(s) actually rotate? in what manner do the two support(s) support the torsion bars? Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “around the rotation axis in the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion, respectively”, i.e., there is a singular rotation axis but the claim recites that said axis is located in two intersection portions, which renders the location of the axis unclear. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as follows: “a one-side support and the other-side support configured to… support the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar around the rotation axis”. Claim 1 also recites “a rotation axis of the mirror portion… a vertical direction with respect to the rotation axis”. However, there appears to be no reference frame or context by which one can ascertain the location of the rotation axis and/or the vertical direction, i.e., in what manner does the vertical direction correspond to the rotation axis? The claim merely states that these two directions are with respect to each other without specifying their relationship to one another. The specification also fails to define where the rotational axis is located, which renders the positional relationships between these directions as not sufficiently defined. See MPEP § 2173.05(b), Section II, citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as follows: “a rotation axis of the mirror portion… a vertical direction”. Claim 1 also recites: “a rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in at least one setting region of a one-side setting region and the other-side setting region including at least a part of the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion in the vertical direction in the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar in a center range, respectively to change a rigidity of the one setting region when a voltage is applied”. The Examiner notes that the appears to be grammatical issues in the form of a run-on clauses accompanied by a lack of punctuation which renders ascertaining the meaning of this limitation difficult, thereby rendering the location of the rigidity changing piezoelectric element as unclear (i.e., is the rigidity changing piezoelectric element located in the setting regions or the intersection portions or in the torsion bar?). See also discussion supra regarding the vertical direction limitation. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as follows: “a rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in at least one setting region of a one-side setting region and the other-side setting region to change a rigidity of the one setting region when a voltage is applied.”
Claims 2-8 inherit the deficiency of Claim 1 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
3. Similarly, claim 6 recites the limitation: “wherein the movable frame body is coupled to and supported by each torsion bar on the rotation axis, and is coupled to and supported by the annular-shaped body on another rotation axis of the mirror portion”. It is unclear where this ‘another rotation axis’ is located, and the specification (along with the Drawings) fail to elucidate and/or depict this limitation (see corresponding Drawings objection). For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “wherein the movable frame body is coupled to and supported by each torsion bar on the rotation axis, and is coupled to and supported by the annular-shaped body”.
4. Claim 3 recites the limitation: “wherein the rigidity changing piezoelectric element includes a first rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the center range and a second rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the both end ranges”. It is unclear how a singular rigidity changing piezoelectric element may be formed in both end ranges, since each end range would require a rigidity changing piezoelectric element, thereby rendering the number of claimed structures unclear. Additionally, it is unclear where the boundaries of the center range are located and how the center range may be distinguished from the end ranges. Claim 2, from which claim 3 depends upon, fails to specify the location of said ranges. Thus, the positional relationship between the first and second rigidity changing piezoelectric element (as recited in claim 3) is not sufficiently defined, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the rigidity changing piezoelectric element includes a rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the center range and rigidity changing piezoelectric elements formed in the both end ranges”.
5. Claim 4 recites the limitation: “wherein the other-side support has a sensor setting region on a mirror portion side or an opposite side of the mirror portion side in an extending direction of the rotation axis with respect to the both end ranges of the other-side setting region”. It is unclear if a sensor or a region is located in an extending direction of the rotation axis, since the claim recites “a sensor setting region”. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “extending direction of the rotation axis with respect to the both end ranges of the other-side setting region”, since the rotation axis is not shown in FIGS. 1-8 of the as-filed Drawings (of 01/05/2024), and the end ranges are located along the vertical direction and not along the rotation direction, thereby rendering unclear how the sensor setting region may extend ‘with respect to the end ranges’ as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the other-side support has a sensor setting region on a mirror portion side or an opposite side of the mirror portion side in an extending direction with respect to the both end ranges of the other-side setting region”.
6. Claim 8 recites the limitation: “wherein the MEMS optical deflector includes a first MEMS optical deflector and a second MEMS optical deflector in which scanning regions of a light beam overlap each other in a one-side end region”. It is unclear where the scanning regions and the one-side end region are located because the claim fails to specify any reference frame/context by which the positional relationships may be ascertained, thereby rendering the overlap area as also unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the MEMS optical deflector includes a first MEMS optical deflector and a second MEMS optical deflector”.
7. The following limitations (A-B) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function:
A. Regarding Claims 7-8 limitation: “a control unit configured to control and/or compare…”, the as-filed specification (of 01/05/2024) is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of the claimed control unit. Furthermore, the specification does not appear to recite “a control unit”, but rather “a resonance frequency control unit 55” (see ¶0052, 0055-57 of specification), which further renders unclear the correspondence between the claimed structure and the structures as disclosed in the written description. Additionally, the claimed function of comparing resonance frequencies as recited in claim 8 are neither disclosed in the written description nor linked to any control unit structure.
B. Regarding Claim 7 limitation: “a frequency detector configured to detect…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of a frequency detector beyond an ipsis verbis appearance of the generic placeholder (see ¶0010 of specification).
Therefore, Claims 7-8 are rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizumoto (JP 2008145839 A; as cited in the IDS filed 01/05/2024).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Mizumoto discloses: A MEMS optical deflector (FIG. 1:1; ¶0003, 0032: micro optical scanner with electromechanical elements) comprising:
A. a mirror portion configured to reflect a light beam (¶0027: mirror portion 11);
B. a one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar extending from one end portion and the other end portion of the mirror portion along a rotation axis of the mirror portion, respectively (¶0029: The torsion bar section 12 is made up of two torsion bars 12 a and 12 b extending from both ends of the mirror section 11 to the vibrating section 2 along the center line Ax of the mirror section 11);
C. a one-side support and the other-side support configured to intersect the one- side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar in a one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion in a vertical direction with respect to the rotation axis, respectively, and rotatably support the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar around the rotation axis in the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion, respectively (see FIG. 1 showing intersection portions of supports 21-24; ¶0029-30: mirror section 11 is elastically supported by the vibration section 2 by the torsion bar section 12. The vibrating unit 2 has curved beams 21 and 22 as plate-like members [one side support] connected to the torsion bar 12a, and curved beams 23 and 24 as plate-like members [other side support] connected to the torsion bar 12b; ¶0035: As a result of bending in the bending beams 21 to 24 in this manner, a rotational torque is applied to the mirror part 11 around the central axis Ax via the torsion bars 12a and 12b, and the mirror part 11, which acts as a movable part, can be caused to oscillate around the central axis Ax);
D. actuators configured to rotate the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar around the rotation axis in the one-side intersection portion and the other- side intersection portion, respectively (¶0035: the first piezoelectric elements 31 to 34; ¶0040: applying an AC driving voltage to the first piezoelectric elements 31 to 34 generate a seesaw-like rotational torque in the torsion bars 12a, 12b); and
E. a rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in at least one setting region of a one-side setting region and the other-side setting region including at least a part of the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion in the vertical direction in the one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar in a center range, respectively to change a rigidity of the one setting region when a voltage is applied (¶0033: the second piezoelectric elements 41 to 44 which are electromechanical conversion elements are configured as piezoelectric vibrators for changing the spring constant (elastic coefficient) [rigidity changing piezoelectric element] of the vibration system that vibrates the mirror section 11; see FIG. 1 showing rigidity changing piezoelectric element 41-44 formed in at least one setting region of a one-side setting region and the other-side setting region including at least a part of the one-side intersection portion and the other-side intersection portion in the vertical direction X; ¶0031: second piezoelectric elements 41 to 44 attached to the upper surfaces of the curved beams 21 to 24, respectively).
Regarding Claim 2, Mizumoto discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 1, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: wherein each of the one-side setting region and the other-side setting region is set as a region including the center range and both end ranges on both sides of the center range in the vertical direction, and the rigidity changing piezoelectric element is formed in at least one of the center range and the both end ranges (¶0029, 0033; see FIG. 1 showing the rigidity changing piezoelectric element 41-44 formed in at least one of the center range and the both end ranges).
Regarding Claim 5, Mizumoto discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 1, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: wherein the one-side support and the other-side support form one annular-shaped body that surrounds the mirror portion from an outside, and the actuators are piezoelectric actuators formed in the annular-shaped body (¶0032: the first piezoelectric elements 31 to 34 function as piezoelectric actuators; see FIG. 1 showing the one-side support and the other-side support 21-24 form one annular-shaped body that surrounds the mirror portion 11 from an outside, and the actuators 31-34 are piezoelectric actuators formed in the annular-shaped body).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Mizumoto discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 1, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: An optical scanning device (¶0001; FIG. 4: 100) comprising: the MEMS optical deflector (¶0002; FIG. 1: 1); a frequency detector configured to detect a reciprocating rotation frequency of the mirror portion around the rotation axis (¶0044: an angle detector 56 that receives the reflected light of the beam light Lb irradiated from the light source 55 on the back surface Sb of the mirror unit 11; ¶0023: detection means that detects the displacement related to the oscillating vibration of the movable part so that the variable device can be appropriately controlled to effectively adjust the resonant frequency); and a control unit configured to control the applied voltage of the rigidity changing piezoelectric element based on an output of the frequency detector (¶0044: control unit 54 controls the spring constant variable driving unit 52 for applying a voltage to the second piezoelectric elements 41 to 44 to drive them).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumoto (JP 2008145839 A) in view of Shinkawa et al. (US 2018/0282147 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Mizumoto discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 2, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: wherein the rigidity changing piezoelectric element includes a second rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the both end ranges (¶0029, 0033; see FIG. 1 showing the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element 41-44 formed in the both end ranges), and a rigidity of the one setting region is different between when the voltage is applied only to the first rigidity changing piezoelectric element, when the voltage is applied only to the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element, and when the voltage is applied to both the first rigidity changing piezoelectric element and the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element (¶0038-40, 0049, 0057, 0070, 0088: the spring constant of the vibration unit 2 changes in accordance with the force generated by the second piezoelectric elements 41 to 44… in each unimorph section Ua to Ud, the generated force (rotational torque) of the first piezoelectric elements 31 to 34 and the generated force (rotational torque) of the second piezoelectric elements 41 to 44 are combined… drive voltage applied to the first piezoelectric element 31 and the opposite phase to this drive voltage is applied to the first piezoelectric element 32 to result in rotational torque).
Mizumoto does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the rigidity changing piezoelectric element includes a first rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the center range.
Shinkawa is related to Mizumoto with respect to a MEMS optical deflector comprising a mirror portion, a one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar, a one-side support and the other-side support, plurality of actuators configured to rotate the torsion bars, and a rigidity changing piezoelectric element (¶0045-50; FIG. 4) and Shinkawa teaches: wherein the rigidity changing piezoelectric element includes a first rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the center range (¶0049: a main scanning piezoelectric element 24, which serves as a second driving means for applying a driving force for elastically deforming the fifth elastically deformable portions 16A and 16B; see FIG. 4 showing a first rigidity changing piezoelectric element 24 formed in the center range) and a second rigidity changing piezoelectric element formed in the both end ranges (¶0049: sub-scanning piezoelectric elements 20 to 23, which serve as driving means for applying a driving force for elastically deforming the elastically deformable portions 12 to 15; see FIG. 4 showing a second rigidity changing piezoelectric element 20-23 formed in the both end ranges), and a rigidity of the one setting region is different between when the voltage is applied only to the first rigidity changing piezoelectric element, when the voltage is applied only to the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element, and when the voltage is applied to both the first rigidity changing piezoelectric element and the second rigidity changing piezoelectric element (¶0051, 0054: When such sub-scanning driving signals Va and Vb are applied, each of the sub-scanning piezoelectric elements 20 to 23 expands and contracts according to the voltage value…when the main scanning driving signal is applied, the main scanning piezoelectric element 24 expands and contracts according to the voltage value; ¶0058, 0066: when different driving voltage signals Va and Vb are respectively applied to different portions of the elastically deformable portions, the deformed state will also differ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS optical deflector of Mizumoto in view of Shinkawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such rigidity changing piezoelectric elements may be utilized to obtain uniformness in the curved and deformed state between the first and second rigidity changing piezoelectric elements, as taught in paragraphs ¶0074-75 of Shinkawa.
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Mizumoto discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 3, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: wherein the other-side support has a sensor setting region on a mirror portion side or an opposite side of the mirror portion side in an extending direction of the rotation axis with respect to the both end ranges of the other-side setting region, and a piezoelectric sensor configured to detect a rotation angle of the mirror portion around the rotation axis is formed in the sensor setting region (¶0097: The displacement angle may be detected based on an output signal from a piezoelectric element SN (FIG. 1) attached to the torsion bar 12 a as a displacement angle detection sensor; see FIG. 1 showing SN extending along direction as claimed).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumoto (JP 2008145839 A) in view of Naono (US 2015/0022871 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Mizumoto discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 5, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: wherein the movable frame body is coupled to and supported by each torsion bar on the rotation axis, and is coupled to and supported by the annular-shaped body on another rotation axis of the mirror portion (¶0027: the vibration unit 2 connected to the torsion bar section 12 is connected to the frame unit 10).
Mizumoto does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising: an annular movable frame body that surrounds the annular-shaped body from the outside.
Naono is related to Mizumoto with respect to a MEMS optical deflector comprising a mirror portion, a one-side torsion bar and the other-side torsion bar, a one-side support and the other-side support, plurality of actuators configured to rotate the torsion bars, and a rigidity changing piezoelectric element (¶0012, 0071, 0103-04, 0175-0182; FIGS. 1, 5, 15) and Naono teaches: an annular movable frame body that surrounds the annular-shaped body from the outside (¶0176: micro scanner device 601 has an approximately annular shape in a plan view; ¶0182: A piezoelectric actuator section 630 [movable frame] is configured that has an annular structure; see FIG. 15 showing annular movable frame body of 601 that surrounds the annular-shaped body 630 from the outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS optical deflector of Mizumoto in view of Naono to satisfy the claimed condition because such an annular movable frame body may be utilized to obtain a large torque by a large area of the actuator section, as taught in paragraphs ¶0176 of Naono.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumoto (JP 2008145839 A) in view of Loya et al. (US 2022/0196806 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, discloses the MEMS optical deflector according to Claim 7, as above. Mizumoto further discloses: the control unit compares resonance frequencies of the mirror portion around the rotation axis when no voltage is applied to the rigidity changing piezoelectric elements (¶0080-83: control unit compares frequency data to minimizes the difference value), and controls the application of the voltage of the rigidity changing piezoelectric element of the MEMS optical deflector with a lower resonance frequency such that a resonance frequency of the MEMS optical deflector with a lower resonance frequency matches a resonance frequency of the MEMS optical deflector with a higher resonance frequency (¶0048, 0077, 0085: matching resonant frequency fok to fi).
Mizumoto does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the MEMS optical deflector includes a first MEMS optical deflector and a second MEMS optical deflector in which scanning regions of a light beam overlap each other in a one-side end region.
However, it has been held that where a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See also St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977), rev'g 403 F. Supp. 776 (S.D. IM. 1975), cert. denied 434 U.S. 833 (1977).
In the present case, Loya is related to Mizumoto with respect to a MEMS optical deflector comprising a mirror portion, torsion bars, a one-side support and the other-side support, plurality of actuators configured to rotate the torsion bars, and a rigidity changing piezoelectric element (¶0042, 0057-59, 0063, 0066; see FIGS. 1-3) and Loya teaches: wherein the MEMS optical deflector includes a first MEMS optical deflector and a second MEMS optical deflector (¶0055-57: a micro-mirror array comprising multiple MEMS micro-mirror assemblies can be used to provide the steering capability of mirror assembly 212; see FIGS. 1-3 showing first and second optical deflectors in 250/302) in which scanning regions of a light beam overlap each other in a one-side end region (¶0002, 0034, 0053, 0055), and the control unit compares resonance frequencies of the mirror portion around the rotation axis when no voltage is applied to the rigidity changing piezoelectric elements of the first MEMS optical deflector and the second MEMS optical deflector (¶0078: control signals based on a comparison result reflecting differences among the actual rotation angles of the multiple micro-mirror assemblies at any given time), and controls the application of the voltage of the rigidity changing piezoelectric element of the MEMS optical deflector with a lower resonance frequency such that a resonance frequency of the MEMS optical deflector with a lower resonance frequency matches a resonance frequency of the MEMS optical deflector with a higher resonance frequency (¶0051: the controller can identify, based on the output voltage from a bridge circuit, which of the micro-mirrors has a different rotation angle from other micro-mirrors, and adjust the amplitude/frequency of the control signal to that micro-mirror to improve the synchronization; ¶0073: target frequencies; ¶0078: adjustment module 340 can adjust the control signal (e.g., by reducing its amplitude and/or frequency) to the first micro-mirror to reduce its rotation angle to match the rotation angle of the second micro-mirror. In another example, adjustment module 340 can adjust the control signal to the second micro-mirror (e.g., by increasing its amplitude and/or frequency) to increase its rotation angle to match the rotation angle of the first micro-mirror; ¶0069, 0077: inducing resonance in each micro-mirror assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizumoto’s MEMS optical deflector via duplication of parts and in view of Loya to satisfy the claimed condition of two optical deflectors, since such a first and second MEMS optical deflectors are known and would be selected “to provide the steering capability and a comparable, or even larger, aggregate reflective surface area. With a larger reflective surface area, incident light with a larger beam width can be projected onto the micro-mirror array for the light steering operation, which can mitigate the effect of dispersion and can improve the imaging/ranging resolution. Moreover, each individual micro-mirror has a smaller size and mass, which can lessen the burdens on the actuators that control those micro-mirrors and can improve reliability. Further, the actuators can rotate the micro-mirrors by a larger rotation angle for a given torque, which can improve the FOV of the micro-mirror array” (¶0035, 0057 of Loya); additionally, such resonance frequency matching functions of the control unit is known and would be selected to ensure the rotations of the two deflectors are synchronized, which results in substantial reduction in the required torque to achieve a range of rotation for the target FOV, as taught in ¶0077-78 of Loya; and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere duplication of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Yasuda et al. (US 2014/0355088 A1) and Ohara et al. (US 2009/0302716 A1) disclose a MEMS optical deflector comprising a mirror portion, torsion bars, a one-side support and the other-side support, plurality of actuators configured to rotate the torsion bars, a rigidity changing piezoelectric 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
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872