2002DETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6: claims 6 depends on claim 5. Claim 5 has the limitations of: where β represents an angle formed by an optical path between the light source and the deflecting unit and an optical path between the first optical element and the light receiving element when they are projected in a main scanning cross section. An angle by definition, is formed by 2 lines that meet at a point (i.e., the 2 lines intersect each other). Therefore, claim 5 already has the limitation of claim 6 which is: wherein the optical path between the light source and the deflecting unit and the optical path between the first optical element and the light receiving element intersect with each other when they are projected in the main scanning cross section.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP2010107554A).
Regarding claim 1: Kurihara teaches a light scanning apparatus (fig. 2, fig. 3) comprising:
a deflecting unit (polygon mirror 84 fig. 3, paragraph 0024) configured to deflect a light flux (light flux emitted from 81 of fig. 3) from a light source (81, fig. 3, laser diode, paragraph 24) so that a scanned surface (31 fig. 2, photosensitive drum, paragraph 24) is scanned with the light flux in a main scanning direction (direction A fig. 2); and
an optical system including a first optical element (lens 85, fig. 3, paragraph 0024),
wherein the first optical element includes:
a transmissive surface (see light passes through the surface of 85, fig. 3) configured to transmit a first light flux (L or L2 fig. 3) deflected by the deflecting unit (84 fig. 1) at a first timing to guide the first light flux to the scanned surface; and
a reflective surface (85b, fig. 3, fig. 7 and 8) configured to totally reflect (total reflection, critical angle at 41.8 degrees paragraph 0028) a second light flux (L1, fig. 3) deflected by the deflecting unit at a second timing different from the first timing to guide the second light flux to a light receiving element (detection sensor 91, fig 3, paragraph 0029)(note: as the polygon mirror 84 rotate, the timing of a light flux hitting the 85b at critical angle compare to hitting other transmitted area of 85 are inherently different, also the distance between the mirror 84 to 85b are also different compare to the distance between mirror 84 and other area of lens 85, fig. 3),
wherein the reflective surface is arranged on the same side as the light source (85b and 81 are located at the left side of mirror 84 looking toward 80a, fig. 3) with respect to a sub-scanning cross section (the cross section of the center optical axis of mirror 84 going from left to right of drawing 3 cutting vertically into the drawing (sub-scanning direction) splitting scanning device into halves) including an optical axis (the center vertically into drawing of mirror 84 can be viewed as an optical axis of the optical system) of the optical system,
Kurihara does not teach wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
55°≤α≤75°
where α represents an incident angle of a principal ray of the second light flux to the reflective surface.
However, paragraph 28 of Kurihara teaches the critical angle is at 41.8 degrees, paragraph 0028 also see fig. 7). According to physics, total reflection, in Kurihara situation will happen between 41.8 degree and 90 degree which will include 55 degree to 75 degree.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: the incident angle of a principal ray of the second flux to be greater than 41.8 degree but less than 90 degrees which includes between 55 degree and 75 degree, so that the second light flux can exist and for the system of Kurihara to be able to operate properly. Therefore, it would have been to a person with ordinary skill in the art to design the system of Kurihara to include: wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
55°≤α≤75°
where α represents an incident angle of a principal ray of the second light flux to the reflective surface.
Kuruhara’s design can accommodate higher resolution and higher speeds in printers (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 2: Kurihara teaches the light scanning apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a controller (control unit 93, write clock generator 94, paragraph 0030) configured to control (write clock generator 94 corrects the video clock generated by a reference clock generator 95 to generate a write clock, paragraph 30) a light emission timing of the light source based on a timing of reception of the second light flux by the light receiving element (paragraph 29, the time from when the first laser light L1 is incident on the synchronous detection sensor 91 to when the second laser light L2 is incident on the synchronous detection sensor 91 is measured…paragraph 30, the time difference …is transferred to the comparison control section.93….compares the transferred time difference with reference time…calculates the deviation from the reference time…in response to this deviation, a write clock generator 94 corrects the video clock generated by a reference clock generator 95 to generate a write clock, which is sent to a laser diode driver 96).
Regarding claim 3: Kurihara teaches the light scanning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an optical path between the deflecting unit and the first optical element is free from an optical element configured to guide the first light flux (see fig. 3, between 84 and 85, there are no other optical element in between).
Regarding claim 7: Kurihara teaches the light scanning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first optical element includes an incident surface (see fig. 3, L deflected from mirror 84 enter the first optical element 85 through a surface of 85) through which the second light flux (L1 fig. 3) deflected by the deflecting unit is incident on the first optical element and an exit surface through which the second light flux reflected by the reflective surface exits from the first optical element (see fig. 3, L1 reflected from reflective surface 85b exit from a different surface of first optical element 85).
Regarding claim 8: Kurihara teaches the light scanning apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first optical element includes a first transmissive surface (see the surface L or L1 is incident onto Lens 85, fig. 3) through which the first light flux deflected by the deflecting unit is incident on the first optical element and a second transmissive surface (see the surface that L or L1 exit from 85 of fig. 3) through which the first light flux that has been incident on the first optical element through the first transmissive surface exits from the first optical element, and
wherein the second transmissive surface and the reflective surface are connected to each other (see the surface L or L1 incident on to lens 85 and the surface L or L1 exit lens 85 are connected by the lens 85 itself).
Regarding claim 9: Kurihara teaches the light scanning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an optical path between the first optical element and the light receiving element (fig. 3, see the path from between L1 exiting 85 to sensor 91 are free from any optical element which may be used to further guide L1) is free from an optical element configured to guide the second light flux.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP2010107554A) in view of Kinoshita (JP2008287106A).
Regarding claim 4: Kurihara does not teach wherein the light source and the light receiving element are provided on a common substrate.
Kinoshita teaches the light source (laser diode, paragraph 32) and the light receiving element (SOS sensor paragraph 32) are provided on a common substrate (substrate 26, paragraph 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: wherein the light source and the light receiving element are provided on a common substrate.
The reason of doing so would have simplified device fabrication process and reduce cost. It will also improve space efficiency.
Regarding claim 5: Kurihara does not teach the light scanning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-5°≤β≤55°
where β represents an angle formed by an optical path between the light source and the deflecting unit and an optical path between the first optical element and the light receiving element when they are projected in a main scanning cross section.
However, Kinoshita teaches an angle formed by an optical path between the light source 1, fig. 3 and the deflecting unit 5, fig. 3 and an optical path between the first optical element 11, fig. 3 and the light receiving element 25 when they are projected in a main scanning cross section is a greater than 0 degree but less than 45 degree. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art that the wave bending element 21, fig. 3 move to right the angle will increase but no more than 90 degree and if the bending element 21, fig. 3 move to left, the angle will increase but no less than 0 degree. The possible range to implement the invention of Kinoshita overlap the range of -5°≤β≤55°
where β represents an angle formed by an optical path between the light source and the deflecting unit and an optical path between the first optical element and the light receiving element when they are projected in a main scanning cross section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: -5°≤β≤55°
where β represents an angle formed by an optical path between the light source and the deflecting unit and an optical path between the first optical element and the light receiving element when they are projected in a main scanning cross section.
The reason of doing so would have allowed the light source and the sensor get close to each other to be put on same substrate to simplify device fabrication process and reduce cost. It will also improve space efficiency.
Regarding claim 6: Kinoshita, fig. 3, teaches the light scanning apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the optical path between the light source 1, fig. 3 and the deflecting unit 5, fig. 3 and the optical path between the first optical element 11, fig. 3 and the light receiving element 25, fig. 3 intersect with each other when they are projected in the main scanning cross section (fig. 3 of Kinoshita is looking t the main scanning cross section).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP2010107554A) in view of Yoshida (US 2002/0057327).
Regarding claim 10: Kurihara does not teach: wherein the first optical element is made of a resin material.
Yoshida teaches to use resin material (resin paragraph 0082) for a first optical element (optical element, paragraph 82) in a scanning device (scanning optical means (paragraph 0123) of a printer (image forming apparatus, paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: wherein the first optical element is made of a resin material.
The reason of doing so can reduce cost (Yoshida, paragraph 0082, for the sake of cost).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP2010107554A) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2008/0239436).
Regarding claim 11: Kurihara does not teach wherein the first optical element has formed therein a gate portion on an opposite side from the light source with respect to the sub-scanning cross section including the optical axis.
Yamaguchi teaches: wherein the first optical element (61 of fig. 6a, fig. 13a has formed therein a gate portion (gate opening side, fig. 13a) on an opposite side from the light source (as we can see from fig. 13 a, the gate opening side can be from either edge side of the lens) with respect to the sub-scanning cross section including the optical axis (after modification to Kurihara, one of the edge of lens 85 of fig. 3 of Kurihara are located to the opposite side of the light source 81 viewing from the cross section of the center optical axis of mirror 84 going from left to right of drawing 3 cutting vertically into the drawing (sub-scanning direction) splitting scanning device into halves).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: wherein the first optical element has formed therein a gate portion for the purpose of allowing resin to get through the gate to manufacture the lens (paragraph 0029, Yamaguchi). Since there are only two edges of the lens, (finite possible solution), it would also further obvious to form the gate portion on an opposite side from the light source with respect to the sub-scanning cross section including the optical axis.
The reason of doing so would have reduced the cost of manufacturing the scanning device of Kurihara.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP2010107554A) in view of Igarashi (US 2017/0031266).
Regarding claim 12: Kurihara does not teach: a second optical element configured to convert the light flux emitted from the light source into a parallel light flux in a main scanning cross section and condense the light flux in the sub-scanning cross section.
Igarashi teaches: a second optical element (condenser lens 3, paragraph 0036) configured to convert the light flux emitted from the light source into a parallel light flux (parallel light beams, paragraph 0036) in a main scanning cross section (main scanning section, paragraph 0036) and condense the light flux (convergent light beams, paragraph 0036) in the sub-scanning cross section (sub-scanning section paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: a second optical element configured to convert the light flux emitted from the light source into a parallel light flux in a main scanning cross section and condense the light flux in the sub-scanning cross section.
The reason of doing so would have allowed a high quality image being printed. (also see paragraph 0007 of Igarashi).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP2010107554A) in view of Kato (US 2003/0169327).
Regarding claim 13: Kurihara teaches an image forming apparatus (image forming apparatus, paragraph 0017) comprising:
the light scanning apparatus of claim 1;
Although it may be inherent, Kurihara does not disclose a developing unit configured to develop, as a toner image, an electrostatic latent image formed on the scanned surface by the light scanning apparatus;
a transferring unit configured to transfer the developed toner image onto a transferred material; and
a fixing unit configured to fix the transferred toner image on the transferred material.
Kato, in the same field of image forming apparatus teaches a image forming apparatus (fig. 13) having a developing unit (developing unit, paragraph 0022) configured to develop, as a toner image, an electrostatic latent image (electrostatic latent image paragraph 0022) formed on the scanned surface(photosensitive member, paragraph 00222) by the light scanning apparatus;
a transferring unit (transfer unit, paragraph 0022) configured to transfer the developed toner image onto a transferred material; and
a fixing unit (fixing unit, paragraph 0022) configured to fix the transferred toner image on the transferred material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: a developing unit configured to develop, as a toner image, an electrostatic latent image formed on the scanned surface by the light scanning apparatus;
a transferring unit configured to transfer the developed toner image onto a transferred material; and
a fixing unit configured to fix the transferred toner image on the transferred material.
The reason of doing so is to allow the image forming apparatus Kurihara can actually be able to print.
Regarding claim 14: Kurihara teaches an image forming apparatus (image forming apparatus, paragraph 0013) comprising:
the light scanning apparatus of claim 1;
Kurihara does not teach a printer controller configured to convert a signal output from an external apparatus into image data to input the image data to the light scanning apparatus.
Kato teaches a printer controller (printer controller, paragraph 0025) configured to convert a signal output from an external apparatus (external device, paragraph 0025) into image data to input the image data to the light scanning apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kurihara to include: a printer controller configured to convert a signal output from an external apparatus into image data to input the image data to the light scanning apparatus.
The reason of doing so would have allow the user of the image forming apparatus to easily importing an image to the image forming apparatus for printing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617