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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozuka (JP 6682730) in view of Natchoo et al.(US 20220333752).
Regarding claim 1, Shinozuka teaches:
A measurement apparatus (#30 of Fig. 1, optical scanning device) comprising:
a mirror (#34 of Fig. 1, reflecting mirror) configured to irradiate an object with scanning light and to reflect reflected light from the object (forward and return beam shown in Fig. 1, [15-16]);
a first driving unit (#32 of Fig. 1, first electric motor) configured to rotate the mirror about a first axis parallel to a horizontal direction [17];
a second driving unit (#48 of Fig. 1, second electric motor) configured to rotate the mirror about a second axis parallel to a vertical direction [20]; and
a processor (control unit #36 and data processing device #55 of Fig. 1) configured to control the first driving unit and the second driving unit [21] and to acquire data on a shape of the object based on the reflected light [21-22],
wherein the processor acquires information about control of the second driving unit ("the control unit 36 sends... the rotational speed and phase of the vertical rotation axis Z detected by the second encoder 38 to the data processing device 55") which allows a target value of density of the data ([20 and 53], the scanner controls the ratios of the scanning speeds to achieve a target density)
Shinozuka does not teach:
wherein the processor acquires information about control of the second driving unit based on a lower limit value of a rotational speed of the second driving unit, which allows the second driving unit to rotate at a constant speed
However, Natchoo teaches:
wherein the processor acquires information about control of the second driving unit based on a lower limit value of a rotational speed of the second driving unit, which allows the second driving unit to rotate at a constant speed [129-131]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Shinozuka to use a threshold speed which allows constant speed rotation similar to Natchoo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy and reliability of the scanning (Natchoo: [135]).
Regarding claim 2, Shinozuka, as modified above, teaches:
The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor performs control to acquire the data [21] while rotating the mirror about the first axis [17] and rotating the mirror about the second axis by 180° ([53]: M is the number of revolutions, if the mirror revolves 17 times, it rotates at least 180 degrees), and wherein the information about the control of the second driving unit includes at least one of the rotational speed of the second driving unit ([20], second encoder #38 detects the rotational speed of the base and sends it to control unit #36) and the number of rotations by 180° of the second driving unit.
Regarding claim 5, Shinozuka, as modified above, teaches:
The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the rotational speed of the second driving unit ([20], second encoder #38 detects the rotational speed of the base and sends it to control unit #36) such that a ratio of the rotational speed of the second driving unit to a rotational speed of the first driving unit is not an integer ([30 and 52]: 17/20 is not an integer).
Regarding claim 6, Shinozuka, as modified above, teaches:
The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the processor performs control a plurality of times to acquire the data ([21], a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the control unit is continuously controlling the encoders) while rotating the mirror about the first axis [17] and rotating the mirror about the second axis by 180° ([20 and 53]: M is the number of revolutions, if the mirror revolves 17 times, it rotates at least 180 degrees), the processor acquires the rotational speed of the second driving unit ([20], second encoder #38 detects the rotational speed of the base and sends it to control unit #36) such that a ratio of the rotational speed of the second driving unit to a rotational speed of the first driving unit is not an integer ([30 and 52], 17/20 is not an integer).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozuka in view of Natchoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galfarsolo et al. (Analysis of vibration..., 2017).
Regarding claim 3, Shinozuka, as modified above, teaches:
The measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
Shinozuka does not teach:
wherein the lower limit value is determined based on a characteristic of the second driving unit.
However, Natchoo teaches:
A lower limit value ([129-131], the lower limit value can prevent speed “dead spots”)
Additionally, Galfarsolo teaches:
Cogging causes speed variation, especially at lower speeds (Fig. 1, “The amplitude of this oscillating wave is bigger as the rotational speed is lower, because at high rotational speeds inertia of the rotor filters the influence of cogging (see Fig. 1).”)
Cogging is influenced by the design of the motor (“Cogging torque is a periodic oscillating wave. In geometrically symmetrical structure PMSMs, the period is represented in mechanical degrees by (1) [1]. It depends on the Least Common Multiple (LCM) of the number of poles (Np) and the number of slots of the stator (Ns)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Shinozuka with a lower limit value similar to Natchoo, based on a characteristic of the second driving unit similar to Galfarsolo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the consistency of the motor speed and avoiding speed dead spots.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozuka in view of Natchoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zogg et al. (US 20140300892).
Regarding claim 4, Shinozuka, as modified above, teaches:
The measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
Shinozuka does not teach:
wherein the measurement apparatus has a plurality of modes with different measurement conditions, and wherein the target value is determined based on one of the plurality of modes selected by a user.
However, Zogg teaches:
wherein the measurement apparatus has a plurality of modes [14-20] with different measurement conditions [14-20], and wherein the target value is determined based on one of the plurality of modes selected by a user [29].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Shinozuka to have user selectable modes similar to Zogg with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of making the scanner more user friendly and simple to handle (Zogg: [7]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights