DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2017207428, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches an optical deflector (abstract; figs. 1-2) comprising:
a reflecting section to be driven by a power source to rotate or oscillate around a drive axis to reflect light from a light source (fig. 2, 12, 15, 11; ¶[0014], line 1-10, The optical device 10 includes a deflection unit 12 , a dispersive reflection unit 13 , a measurement unit 14 , and a signal output unit 15 . The signal output unit 15 outputs a signal S1 to the deflection unit 12 . The signal S1 is a signal whose voltage changes or whose frequency changes. The deflection unit 12 emits the light incident from the light source 11 as outgoing light); and
a diffraction section configured to diffract light reflected by the reflecting section to emit light at an angle in response to a wavelength of an incident light (fig 2, 13, λm (λ1), 12; ¶[0015], line 1-17, The dispersive reflector 13 disperses the light λm that is emitted from the deflector 12 and contains various wavelengths; the dispersive reflector 13 is a diffraction grating; the dispersive reflector 13 may be provided with a movable device (not shown) that changes the relative position between the deflector 12 and the dispersive reflector 13);
wherein the reflecting section is driven to change a first incident angle of light, around the drive axis, incident on the diffraction section from the reflecting section (fig. 2, 12, 15, α; ¶[0014], line 1-26, the deflection unit 12 deflects the exit angle α of the exiting light in accordance with the input signal S1, thereby changing the incident angle θi of the light incident on the dispersive reflector 13; fig. 5, WI, θ1, θ2),
when the wavelength of the incident light is changed, the diffraction section changes a first emission angle of light emitted from the diffraction section, around a first axis perpendicular to the drive axis and a predetermined direction defined to extend from the reflecting section toward the diffraction section perpendicularly to the drive axis (fig. 2, 13, λm (λ1), W0, θi, θd; ¶[0023], line 1-16, The conventional device disperses light λm containing various wavelengths by changing the incident angle θi of light incident on the dispersive reflector 13, and selects light of wavelength λ1),
a change in the first incident angle changes a second emission angle of light emitted from the diffraction section around the drive axis (fig. 2, 12, α; 13, θi, θd; fig. 5, WI, W0, λ0, λ1, λ2, λ3, θ1, θ2).
But Suzuki does not specifically disclose that wherein the diffraction section is driven about the drive axis together with the reflecting section to maintain a second incident angle of light, around the first axis, incident on the diffraction section from the reflecting section.
However, above claim portion is referring an operation process, which is of a product-by-process claim; and for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Further, Suzuki teaches in ¶[0015], line 1-17 that “the dispersive reflector 13 is a diffraction grating; the dispersive reflector 13 may be provided with a movable device (not shown) that changes the relative position between the deflector 12 and the dispersive reflector 13”. It is obvious that to maintain a second incident angle of light around the first axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical deflector of Suzuki to have the diffraction section driven as claimed, for the purpose to provide an optical device that has a higher light utilization efficiency, and is capable of scanning a wide range of wavelengths, and has a simple, robust, and compact structure (¶[0009], line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki teaches that the optical deflector according to claim 1, further comprising:
a light transmitting unit having a first transmission section formed between the light source and the reflecting section to transmit light from the light source toward the reflecting section (fig. 2, section between 11 and 12); and
a second transmission section formed between the reflecting section and the diffraction section to transmit light from the reflecting section toward the diffraction section (fig. 2, section between 12 and 13),
wherein the reflecting section, the diffraction section, and the light transmitting unit are integrally formed with each other (fig. 2, 11, 12, 13; --further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 US 164 (1893)).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki teaches that the optical deflector according to claim 1, further comprising a beam adjustment element to make a beam diameter of light incident on the diffraction section larger than a beam diameter of light reflected by the reflecting section (figs. 1-2, L-lens; --the lens can change divergence/convergence of light beam from light source 11. it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches that the optical deflector according to claim 1, further comprising a beam adjustment element to make a beam diameter of light incident on the diffraction section smaller than a beam diameter of light reflected by the reflecting section (figs. 1-2, L-lens; --the lens can change divergence/convergence of light beam from light source 11. it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki teaches that the optical deflector according to claim 1, further comprising an emission adjustment element to output light emitted from the diffraction section at an emission angle different from the first emission angle (fig. 2, 12, α; 13, θi, θd; fig. 5, WI, W0-a, W0-b, λ0, λ1, λ2, λ3, θ1, θ2).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki teaches that the optical deflector according to claim 1, further comprising an incidence adjustment element to collimate light from the light source (figs. 1-2, L-lens; ¶[0013], line 1-10, The lens L converts the light λm containing various wavelengths output from the light source 11 into parallel light).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki teaches that the optical deflector according to claim 1, wherein when a light from the diffraction section is applied to a plane orthogonal to the predetermined direction, an arrangement direction in which first reflection points are arranged on the plane, which is changed by a driving of the reflecting section, is perpendicular to an arrangement direction in which second reflection points are arranged on the plane, which is changed by the wavelength of the incident light on the diffraction section (--this claim portion is referring an operation process, which is of a product-by-process claim; and for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches an optical scanning device (abstract; figs. 1-2) comprising:
a power source (fig. 1, OSC; fig. 2, 15);
a light source (figs. 1-2, 11);
an optical deflector including a reflecting section driven to rotate or oscillate about a drive axis by the power source to reflect light from the light source (fig. 2, 12, 15, 11; ¶[0014], line 1-10, The optical device 10 includes a deflection unit 12 , a dispersive reflection unit 13 , a measurement unit 14 , and a signal output unit 15 . The signal output unit 15 outputs a signal S1 to the deflection unit 12 . The signal S1 is a signal whose voltage changes or whose frequency changes. The deflection unit 12 emits the light incident from the light source 11 as outgoing light), and
a diffraction section configured to diffract light reflected by the reflecting section and emit light at an angle in response to a wavelength of an incident light (fig 2, 13, λm (λ1), 12; ¶[0015], line 1-17, The dispersive reflector 13 disperses the light λm that is emitted from the deflector 12 and contains various wavelengths; the dispersive reflector 13 is a diffraction grating; the dispersive reflector 13 may be provided with a movable device (not shown) that changes the relative position between the deflector 12 and the dispersive reflector 13); and
a light receiving element configured to receive light emitted from the diffraction section and reflected by an object via the diffraction section and the reflecting section (figs. 1-2, 11, 12, 13, PD; ¶[0013], line 1-30, The light with wavelength λ1 emitted from the optical device 10 passes through a polarizing beam splitter PBS and a lens L and enters a light source 11. The light of wavelength λ1 incident on the light source 11 resonates only with the light of wavelength λ1 among the light of various wavelengths emitted from the light source 11 . The light source 11 outputs the resonated light of wavelength λ1 as resonated light; the photodiode PD observes an interference signal between resonant lights of wavelength λ1 that are incident on the Twyman-Green interferometer),
wherein the reflecting section is driven to change a first incident angle of light, around the drive axis, incident on the diffraction section from the reflecting section (fig. 2, 12, 15, α; fig. 5, WI, θ1, θ2),
when the wavelength of the incident light is changed, the diffraction section changes a first emission angle of light emitted from the diffraction section around a first axis perpendicular to the drive axis and a predetermined direction defined to extend from the reflecting section toward the diffraction section perpendicularly to the drive axis (fig. 2, 13, λm (λ1), W0, θi, θd; ¶[0023], line 1-16, The conventional device disperses light λm containing various wavelengths by changing the incident angle θi of light incident on the dispersive reflector 13, and selects light of wavelength λ1),
a change in the first incident angle changes a second emission angle of light emitted from the diffraction section around the drive axis (fig. 2, 12, α; 13, θi, θd; fig. 5, WI, W0, λ0, λ1, λ2, λ3, θ1, θ2).
But Suzuki does not specifically disclose that wherein the diffraction section is driven about the drive axis together with the reflecting section to maintain a second incident angle of light, around the first axis, incident on the diffraction section from the reflecting section.
However, above claim portion is referring an operation process, which is of a product-by-process claim; and for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Further, Suzuki teaches in ¶[0015], line 1-17 that “the dispersive reflector 13 is a diffraction grating; the dispersive reflector 13 may be provided with a movable device (not shown) that changes the relative position between the deflector 12 and the dispersive reflector 13”. It is obvious that to maintain a second incident angle of light around the first axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical deflector of Suzuki to have the diffraction section driven as claimed, for the purpose to provide an optical device that has a higher light utilization efficiency, and is capable of scanning a wide range of wavelengths, and has a simple, robust, and compact structure (¶[0009], line 1-4).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh et al (US 2022/0326565).
Regarding Claim 1, Saitoh teaches an optical deflector (abstract; fig. 1) comprising:
a reflecting section to be driven by a power source to rotate or oscillate around a drive axis to reflect light from a light source (fig. 1, 101, 141); and
a diffraction section configured to diffract light reflected by the reflecting section to emit light at an angle in response to a wavelength of an incident light (fig. 1, 121; ¶[0034], line 1-10, liquid crystal diffraction element 121; an orientation of the optical axis of the liquid crystal compound changes continuously and rotationally. The liquid crystal diffraction element has the liquid crystal alignment pattern, thereby diffracting incident light; ¶[0039], line 1-18, a wavelength of a laser beam mainly used as the light source is temperature-dependent; the diffraction angle by the diffraction element changes depending on the wavelength of the light);
wherein the reflecting section is driven to change a first incident angle of light, around the drive axis, incident on the diffraction section from the reflecting section (fig. 1, 101, 121, and light beams reflected from 101),
when the wavelength of the incident light is changed, the diffraction section changes a first emission angle of light emitted from the diffraction section, around a first axis perpendicular to the drive axis and a predetermined direction defined to extend from the reflecting section toward the diffraction section perpendicularly to the drive axis (fig. 1, 101, 121, and light beams emitted from 121),
a change in the first incident angle changes a second emission angle of light emitted from the diffraction section around the drive axis (fig. 1, 101, 121, light beams reflected from 101 and light beams emitted from 121).
But Saitoh does not specifically disclose that wherein the diffraction section is driven about the drive axis together with the reflecting section to maintain a second incident angle of light, around the first axis, incident on the diffraction section from the reflecting section.
However, above claim portion is referring an operation process, which is of a product-by-process claim; and for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Further, Saitoh teaches in ¶[0053], line 1-4 that “The liquid crystal optical phase modulation element applies a voltage to a liquid crystal layer to control alignment of the liquid crystal in the liquid crystal layer, thereby controlling the deflection direction of the incident light”. It is obvious that to maintain a second incident angle of light around the first axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical deflector of Saitoh to have the diffraction section driven as claimed, for the purpose to provide an optical scanning device having a stable scanning direction corresponding to a temperature fluctuation (¶[0019], line 1-7).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights