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 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.
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.
Examiner notes that there are two sets of nonstatutory double patenting rejections below, one over copending Application No. 18689189 (first) and the other over copending Application No. 18721171 (second)
Claims 1-3 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18689189 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A.
Regarding claim 1, 18689189 claim 10 (which depends on claim 1) teaches an optical scanning device (claim 10) comprising:
a movable reflector (claim 1);
18689189 claim 10 does not explicitly teach but Kamota teaches a first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector (8 in Figs. 3, 7-8); and a first light detection element detecting light emitted from the first light-emitting element (9 in Figs. 3, 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18689189 claim 10 to include a first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector; and a first light detection element detecting light emitted from the first light-emitting element similar to Kamota with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing monitoring of the status of the movable reflector.
Regarding claim 2, 18689189 claim 10 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
18689189 claim 10 does not explicitly teach but Kamota teaches wherein the first light-emitting element is installed on a side opposite to a side of the movable reflector on which a reflecting surface of the movable reflector is located (8 is on opposite side of reflector for scanning in Figs. 3, 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18689189 claim 10 to include the first light-emitting element is installed on a side opposite to a side of the movable reflector on which a reflecting surface of the movable reflector is locate similar to Kamota with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing monitoring of the status of the movable reflector.
Regarding claim 3, 18689189 claim 10 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
18689189 claim 10 does not explicitly teach but Kamota teaches wherein the first light detection element comprises a plurality of light detection units located on both sides of a virtual plane that passes through a rotation axis of the movable reflector and is perpendicular to the reflecting surface of the movable reflector (9a and 9b in Fig. 8, [0010, 20, 23, 30]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18689189 claim 10 such that the first light detection element comprises a plurality of light detection units located on both sides of a virtual plane that passes through a rotation axis of the movable reflector and is perpendicular to the reflecting surface of the movable reflector similar to Kamota with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing monitoring of the status of the movable reflector.
Regarding claim 7, 18689189 claim 10 as modified above teaches a sensor device comprising:
the optical scanning device according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above);
a second light-emitting element (claim 10); and
a second light detection element that detects light emitted from the second light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflector, and reflected or scattered by an object that exists outside of the optical scanning device (claim 10).
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18689189 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A and further in view of Honda JP H0334134 A.
Regarding claim 4, 18689189 claim 10 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
18689189 claim 10 does not explicitly teach but Honda teaches further comprising a torsion bar connected to the movable reflector, wherein at least a portion of the torsion bar is electronically connected to the first light-emitting element (leaf spring 22 is formed of a conductor and connected to the power source and LED 30; pg. 4 paragraphs 2-3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18689189 claim 10 to include a torsion bar connected to the movable reflector, wherein at least a portion of the torsion bar is electronically connected to the first light-emitting element similar to Honda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the additional electrical wiring needed for the light source to function.
Claims 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18689189 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A and Honda JP H0334134 A and further in view of Miyazaki JP 2004170499 A.
Regarding claim 5, 18689189 claim 10 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 4,
a frame body that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector and connected to the torsion bar (claim 1),
18689189 claim 10 does not explicitly teach further comprising wherein a dividing portion is provided on portions, located on both sides of the rotation axis of the movable reflector, of the frame body.
Miyazaki teaches a dividing portion on portions of a frame (terminals 13 separated by movable holder 4 in Fig. 1, similar electrical spacing in Fig. 14; lns. 159 – 185 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18689189 claim 10 such that a dividing portion is provided on portions, located on both sides of the rotation axis of the movable reflector, of the frame body similar to Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing rotations of the device without short circuiting the light source.
Regarding claim 6, 18689189 claim 10 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 5,
wherein a resin body is provided over at least a part of the frame body (claim 1) .
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18721171 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A.
Regarding claim 1, 18721171 claim 6 (which depends on claim 1) teaches an optical scanning device (claim 6) comprising:
a movable reflector (claim 1);
a first light-emitting element (claim 1); and
a first light detection element detecting light emitted from the first light-emitting element (claim 1).
18721171 claim 6 does not explicitly teach but Kamota teaches the first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector (8 in Figs. 3, 7-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18721171 claim 6 to include a first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector similar to Kamota with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing monitoring of the status of the movable reflector.
Regarding claim 2, 18721171 claim 6 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
18721171 claim 6 does not explicitly teach but Kamota teaches wherein the first light-emitting element is installed on a side opposite to a side of the movable reflector on which a reflecting surface of the movable reflector is located (8 is on opposite side of reflector for scanning in Figs. 3, 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18721171 claim 6 to include the first light-emitting element is installed on a side opposite to a side of the movable reflector on which a reflecting surface of the movable reflector is locate similar to Kamota with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing monitoring of the status of the movable reflector.
Regarding claim 3, 18721171 claim 6 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
18721171 claim 6 does not explicitly teach but Kamota teaches wherein the first light detection element comprises a plurality of light detection units located on both sides of a virtual plane that passes through a rotation axis of the movable reflector and is perpendicular to the reflecting surface of the movable reflector (9a and 9b in Fig. 8, [0010, 20, 23, 30]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18721171 claim 6 such that the first light detection element comprises a plurality of light detection units located on both sides of a virtual plane that passes through a rotation axis of the movable reflector and is perpendicular to the reflecting surface of the movable reflector similar to Kamota with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing monitoring of the status of the movable reflector.
Regarding claim 7, 18721171 claim 6 as modified above teaches a sensor device comprising:
the optical scanning device according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above);
a second light-emitting element (claim 6); and
a second light detection element that detects light emitted from the second light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflector, and reflected or scattered by an object that exists outside of the optical scanning device (claim 6).
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18721171 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A and further in view of Honda JP H0334134 A.
Regarding claim 4, 18721171 claim 6 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
18721171 claim 6 does not explicitly teach but Honda teaches further comprising a torsion bar connected to the movable reflector, wherein at least a portion of the torsion bar is electronically connected to the first light-emitting element (leaf spring 22 is formed of a conductor and connected to the power source and LED 30; pg. 4 paragraphs 2-3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18721171 claim 6 to include a torsion bar connected to the movable reflector, wherein at least a portion of the torsion bar is electronically connected to the first light-emitting element similar to Honda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the additional electrical wiring needed for the light source to function.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18721171 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A and Honda JP H0334134 A and further in view of Miyazaki JP 2004170499 A.
Regarding claim 5, 18721171 claim 6 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 4,
a frame body that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector and connected to the torsion bar (claim 1),
18721171 claim 6 does not explicitly teach further comprising wherein a dividing portion is provided on portions, located on both sides of the rotation axis of the movable reflector, of the frame body.
Miyazaki teaches a dividing portion on portions of a frame (terminals 13 separated by movable holder 4 in Fig. 1, similar electrical spacing in Fig. 14; lns. 159 – 185 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18721171 claim 6 such that a dividing portion is provided on portions, located on both sides of the rotation axis of the movable reflector, of the frame body similar to Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing rotations of the device without short circuiting the light source.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18721171 in view of Kamota JP H07128602 A, Honda JP H0334134 A, and Miyazaki JP 2004170499 A, and further in view of Kono JP 2015152869 A.
Regarding claim 6, 18721171 claim 6 as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 5,
18721171 claim 6 does not explicitly teach but Kono teaches wherein a resin body is provided over at least a part of the frame body (reinforcing member 61 made of resin…is proved on back of frame portion 6 in Fig. 2, [0024]) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 18721171 claim 6 such that a resin body is provided over at least a part of the frame body similar to Kono with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of strengthening the frame without causing a short circuit in the light source circuit.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamota JP H07128602 A.
Regarding claim 1, Kamota teaches an optical scanning device (3 in Figs. 3, 7-8) comprising:
a movable reflector (6 in Figs. 3, 7-8);
a first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector (8 in Figs. 3, 7-8); and
a first light detection element detecting light emitted from the first light-emitting element (9 in Figs. 3, 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Kamota teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
wherein the first light-emitting element is installed on a side opposite to a side of the movable reflector on which a reflecting surface of the movable reflector is located (8 is on opposite side of reflector for scanning in Figs. 3, 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Kamota teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
wherein the first light detection element comprises a plurality of light detection units located on both sides of a virtual plane that passes through a rotation axis of the movable reflector and is perpendicular to the reflecting surface of the movable reflector (9a and 9b in Fig. 8, [0010, 20, 23, 30]).
Regarding claim 7, Kamota teaches a sensor device comprising:
the optical scanning device according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1);
a second light-emitting element (10 in Figs. 1-13, [0037-38]); and
a second light detection element that detects light emitted from the second light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflector, and reflected or scattered by an object that exists outside of the optical scanning device (light receiving device 15 in Figs. 12-13, [0037-38]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamota JP H07128602 A in view of Honda JP H0334134 A.
Regarding claim 4, Kamota teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 1,
Kamota does not explicitly teach but Honda teaches further comprising a torsion bar connected to the movable reflector, wherein at least a portion of the torsion bar is electronically connected to the first light-emitting element (leaf spring 22 is formed of a conductor and connected to the power source and LED 30; pg. 4 paragraphs 2-3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamota to include a torsion bar connected to the movable reflector, wherein at least a portion of the torsion bar is electronically connected to the first light-emitting element similar to Honda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the additional electrical wiring needed for the light source to function.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamota JP H07128602 A in view of Honda JP H0334134 A and further in view of Miyazaki JP 2004170499 A.
Regarding claim 5, Kamota as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 4,
Kamota does not explicitly teach further comprising a frame body that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector and connected to the torsion bar, wherein a dividing portion is provided on portions, located on both sides of the rotation axis of the movable reflector, of the frame body.
Honda teaches a frame body surround at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector and connected to the torsion bar (fixed body 21 in Fig. 1; pg. 4 paragraph 2 of translation)
Miyazaki teaches a dividing portion on portions of a frame (terminals 13 separated by movable holder 4 in Fig. 1, similar electrical spacing in Fig. 14; lns. 159 – 185 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamota to include a frame body that is located in at least a part of a region surrounding the movable reflector and connected to the torsion bar similar to Honda with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein a dividing portion is provided on portions, located on both sides of the rotation axis of the movable reflector, of the frame body similar to Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing rotations of the device without short circuiting the light source.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamota JP H07128602 A in view of Honda JP H0334134 A and Miyazaki JP 2004170499 A, and further in view of Kono JP 2015152869 A.
Regarding claim 6, Kamota as modified above teaches the optical scanning device according to Claim 5,
Kamota does not explicitly teach but Kono teaches wherein a resin body is provided over at least a part of the frame body (reinforcing member 61 made of resin…is proved on back of frame portion 6 in Fig. 2, [0024]) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamota such that a resin body is provided over at least a part of the frame body similar to Kono with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of strengthening the frame without causing a short circuit in the light source circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kitazawa US 20210173198 A1 teaches a mirror rotating around inner and outer torsion bars ([0046-51])
Fujimoto US 10730742 B2 teaches a mirror rotating around inner and outer torsion bars (Fig. 11)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights