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 .
Drawings
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, the digital mirror device, resonator mirror, liquid crystal spatial light modulator, galvanometer mirror, position at which a focusing point of the focused light beam is formed, and light modulation method must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the claims are: “independently settable,” “a one-dimensional beam is caused to enter in the modulation step,” and “the modulation step being a step of causing the one-dimensional beam” in Claims 1 and 7, “which the one-dimensional beam is caused to enter in the modulation step” in Claim 2, “when the one-dimensional beam has been caused to sequentially enter,” in Claim 5, and “so that a position at which a focusing point of the focused light beam is formed varies for each of the columns of the cell group” in Claim 6. These limitations (e.g., “independently settable,” “is caused to enter,” “being a step of causing,” “has been caused to,” “light beam is formed varies for each of the columns,” etc.) imply hypothetical or conditional scenarios without clarifying whether the set, causation, etc. and/or claimed limitations are necessary or optional aspects of the spatial light modulation device. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, these phrases do not establish the relationship between the settable/causing condition and the claimed invention. See 35 USC § 112(f) invoke and § 112(b) rejections for further details. Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate.
Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP 2173.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are 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.
Claims 3 and 4 both depend on Claim 2, yet Claim 3 specifies a digital mirror device with a resonator mirror while Claim 4 specifies a liquid crystal spatial light modulator with a galvanometer mirror. These limitations define different and incompatible device configurations, not further limiting subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Since both claims purport to describe the same invention of Claim 2 while requiring fundamentally different and non-overlapping structures, neither claim (i.e., Claims 3 and 4) meaningfully further limits the scope of the parent claim and instead claims alternative systems.
Since the scope cannot be ascertained, Claims 3 and 4 are also 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 regards as the invention.
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 Interpretation/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
With respect to Claims 1-7, claim limitations “a scanning optical system that repeatedly carries out a first conversion step, a modulation step, and a second conversion step while changing a column of the cell group which a one-dimensional beam is caused to enter in the modulation step, the first conversion step being a step of converting a two-dimensional beam into a one-dimensional beam, the modulation step being a step of causing the one-dimensional beam obtained in the first conversion step to enter any of columns of the cell group to generate a one-dimensional beam which is spatially modulated in that column, and the second conversion step being a step of converting the one-dimensional beam obtained in the modulation step into a two-dimensional beam” in Claims 1 and 7 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use the word “step” coupled with functional language, but are modified by some acts that are ambiguous regarding whether those acts are sufficient for performing the claimed functions.
The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, Claims 1-7 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
With respect to Claims 1-7, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the current instance, “a two-dimensional light modulator that includes a cell group in which cells are arranged in a matrix manner and modulation amounts of the respective cells are independently settable; and a scanning optical system that repeatedly carries out a first conversion step, a modulation step, and a second conversion step while changing a column of the cell group which a one-dimensional beam is caused to enter in the modulation step, the first conversion step being a step of converting a two-dimensional beam into a one-dimensional beam, the modulation step being a step of causing the one-dimensional beam obtained in the first conversion step to enter any of columns of the cell group to generate a one-dimensional beam which is spatially modulated in that column, and the second conversion step being a step of converting the one-dimensional beam obtained in the modulation step into a two-dimensional beam” in Claims 1 and 7 recite methods of using the apparatus within apparatus and method claim limitations.
Claim 1 does not merely describe structural capabilities of the scanning optical system, for the claim requires that the system “repeatedly carries out” specific steps (i.e., first conversion step, modulation step, and second conversion step). These limitations tie infringement to performance of operational steps, rather than to structural components of the device, which would be a characteristic of a method claim. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement depends on making the device or utilizing it, which renders the claim indefinite. Furthermore, “independently settable” in Claims 1 and 7 requires that each cell’s modulation amount can be individually controlled and does not specify who or what sets the modulation. This further creates ambiguity as to whether infringement occurs upon manufacture or only upon configuration or use of the spatial light modulation device.
Since the claims conflate apparatus structure with method steps of using the apparatus, the scope of these claims cannot be ascertained, and thus, these claims are unclear and indefinite. Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows independent setting of modulation amounts of cells, or whether infringement occurs when the system is actually operated to perform the recited conversion and modulation steps. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a spatial light modulation device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 Yun et al. US 20050105154 A1 (herein after "Yun").
With respect to Claim 1, Yun discloses a spatial light modulation device (light modulator utilized, light modulation means including a plurality of actuating cells; [0016]), comprising:
a two-dimensional light modulator (light modulation means 300 including actuating cells 310 arranged in two dimensions; [0034]; fig. 6) that includes a cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) in which cells are arranged in a matrix manner (lower and upper electrode layers 312 and 314 vertically or horizontally varied, thus varying each actuating cell 310; [0043]; figs. 7b and 8b) and modulation amounts of the respective cells are independently settable (step height and intensity of diffracted beams controlled per cell by finely adjusting drive voltage applied to actuating cells 310; [0053] and [0057]); and
a scanning optical system (scanning apparatus comprising first lens unit 200 and second lens unit 500; [0034], [0060-61], and [0073]) that repeatedly carries out a first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]), a modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]), and a second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]) while changing a column (adjusting level of step heights formed between actuating cells 310; [0068]) of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) which a one-dimensional beam (linear light type single beam incident from the first lens unit 200; [0039]) is caused to enter in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]), the first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]) being a step of converting (cylindrical lens 220 converts collimated light into parallel linear light; [0036] and [0038]) a two-dimensional beam (plurality of diffracted beams; [0017]) into a one-dimensional beam (light modulation means 300 arranged in one dimension or two dimensions, can form one-dimensional or two-dimensional diffracted beams; [0067]), the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]) being a step of causing the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) obtained in the first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]) to enter any of columns ([0068]) of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) to generate a one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) which is spatially modulated in that column (linear beam incident on actuating cells 310 and diffracted, cells arranged in matrix for spatial modulation; [0039] and [0064-67]; figs. 8a-b), and the second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]) being a step of converting the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) obtained in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]) into a two-dimensional beam (second lens unit 500 converts modulated linear beams into two-dimensional scanned light distributions; [0059] and [0073]).
Examiner reminds the applicant that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 2, Yun discloses the spatial light modulation device (light modulator utilized, light modulation means including a plurality of actuating cells; [0016]) as set forth in claim 1, wherein the scanning optical system (scanning apparatus comprising first lens unit 200 and second lens unit 500; [0034], [0060-61], and [0073]) includes:
a cylindrical lens that converts (cylindrical lens 220 converts collimated light into parallel linear light; [0036] and [0038]), in the first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]), a two-dimensional beam (plurality of diffracted beams; [0017]) into a one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) and that converts ([0036-39]), in the second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]), a one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) into a two-dimensional beam (focus the linear light onto the light modulation means 300, can form one-dimensional or two-dimensional diffracted beams; [0036] and [0067]);
an objective lens that guides (second lens unit 500, a projection lens; [0059]), in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]), the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) to any of columns ([0068]) of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]); and
a scanning mirror (reflector for reflecting incident light; [0049]) that changes a column (adjusting level of step heights formed between actuating cells 310; [0068]) of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) which the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) is caused to enter in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]).
With respect to Claim 5, Yun discloses the spatial light modulation device (light modulator utilized, light modulation means including a plurality of actuating cells; [0016]) as set forth in claim 1, further comprising:
a control section (drive power applied and adjusted from external power source, controlling printing strength; [0053] and [0057]) that resets (on/off in response to drive power; [0016]) the modulation amounts (step height and intensity of diffracted beams controlled per cell by finely adjusting drive voltage applied to actuating cells 310; [0053] and [0057]) of the respective cells in the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) when the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) has been caused to sequentially enter each of all the columns (level of step heights formed between actuating cells 310; [0068]) of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]).
With respect to Claim 7, Yun discloses a light modulation method (operation of the scanning apparatus using a light modulator; [0060]) using a two-dimensional light modulator (light modulation means 300 including actuating cells 310 arranged in two dimensions; [0034]; fig. 6) that includes a cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) in which cells are arranged in a matrix manner (lower and upper electrode layers 312 and 314 vertically or horizontally varied, thus varying each actuating cell 310; [0043]; figs. 7b and 8b) and modulation amounts of the respective cells are independently settable (step height and intensity of diffracted beams controlled per cell by finely adjusting drive voltage applied to actuating cells 310; [0053] and [0057]);
said light modulation method (operation of the scanning apparatus using a light modulator; [0060]) comprising:
repeatedly carrying out a first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]), a modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]), and a second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]) while changing a column (adjusting level of step heights formed between actuating cells 310; [0068]) of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) which a one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) is caused to enter in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]),
the first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]) being a step of converting (cylindrical lens 220 converts collimated light into parallel linear light; [0036] and [0038]) a two-dimensional beam (plurality of diffracted beams; [0017]) into a one-dimensional beam (light modulation means 300 arranged in one dimension or two dimensions, can form one-dimensional or two-dimensional diffracted beams; [0067]),
the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]) being a step of causing the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) obtained in the first conversion step (first lens unit 200 functions to convert beam into linear light; [0036]) to enter any of columns of the cell group (actuating cells 310; [0034]) to generate a one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) which is spatially modulated in that column (linear beam incident on actuating cells 310 and diffracted, cells arranged in matrix for spatial modulation; [0039] and [0064-67]; figs. 8a-b), and
the second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]) being a step of converting the one-dimensional beam (single beam; [0039]) obtained in the modulation step (light modulation means 300 simultaneously and horizontally scans the diffracted beams onto the photosensitive member 700; [0039] and [0064-67]) into a two-dimensional beam (second lens unit 500 converts modulated linear beams into two-dimensional scanned light distributions; [0059] and [0073]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02. See § 102 claim 1 rejection above in the present Office action.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. US 20050105154 A1 (herein after "Yun") in view of Shchegrov US 20060280219 A1.
With respect to Claim 3, Yun discloses the spatial light modulation device (light modulator utilized, light modulation means including a plurality of actuating cells; [0016]) as set forth in claim 2.
Yun does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the two-dimensional light modulator is a digital mirror device; and the scanning mirror is a resonator mirror.
However, in another field of endeavor, Shchegrov teaches frequency stabilized vertical extended cavity surface emitting lasers (fig. 1-35) comprising a micro-mirror of a digital light valve, wherein a pulse repetition rate of each laser in a light source is adjusted ([0062] and [0084-85]), and a resonant mirror (325; [0074]).
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 spatial light modulation device of Yun to further include the technical feature of a digital mirror device functioning as a two-dimensional spatial light modulator and a resonant mirror to perform scanning, for the purpose of switching fast enough to allow a spatial modulator to be utilized in a projection system, sufficient synchronization, optimizing optical response, and controlling output wavelength within an SLM device, as taught by Shchegrov ([0004], [0074] and [0085]).
With respect to Claim 4, Yun discloses the spatial light modulation device (light modulator utilized, light modulation means including a plurality of actuating cells; [0016]) as set forth in claim 2.
Yun does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the two-dimensional light modulator is a liquid crystal spatial light modulator; and the scanning mirror is a galvanometer mirror.
However, in another field of endeavor, Shchegrov teaches frequency stabilized vertical extended cavity surface emitting lasers (fig. 1-35) comprising a light valve formed from an array of liquid crystal elements, or a liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) spatial modulator ([0062]) and a fast beam scanner, such as a pair of mirrors mounted on galvanometers ([0118]).
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 spatial light modulation device of Yun to further include the technical feature of a liquid crystal spatial light modulator functioning as a two-dimensional spatial light modulator and mirrors mounted on galvanometers, for the purpose of modulating the intensity of reflected light across an array, being able to adjust near zero reflectivity (full-off) to a much higher reflectivity (full-on), maintaining image fidelity, and accurately producing a given intensity modulation level, as taught by Shchegrov ([0004], [0113], and [0118]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. US 20050105154 A1 (herein after "Yun").
With respect to Claim 6, Yun discloses a light focusing device (fig. 6), comprising:
a spatial light modulation device (light modulator utilized, light modulation means including a plurality of actuating cells; [0016]) recited in claim 1, and
a scattering medium (e.g., light modulation means 300 acts as a variable diffraction grating for generating diffracted beams having 0th, +1st and -1st order diffraction coefficients; [0049]), conversion of the two-dimensional beam obtained in the second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]), modulation amounts of the respective cells being set (step height and intensity of diffracted beams controlled per cell by finely adjusting drive voltage applied to actuating cells 310; [0053] and [0057]), and varying for each of the columns of the cell group (lower and upper electrode layers 312 and 314 vertically or horizontally varied, thus varying each actuating cell 310; [0043]; figs. 7b and 8b).
Yun does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the scattering medium converts the two-dimensional beam obtained in the second conversion step into a focused light beam and a position at which a focusing point of the focused light beam is formed.
However, Yun further teaches the second lens unit 500 converting the two-dimensional beam obtained in the second conversion step (second lens unit 500 horizontally scans incident diffracted beams onto photosensitive member 700 in one dimension or two dimensions, thus simultaneously scanning diffracted beams; [0067] and [0073]) into a focused light beam (functions to form spots by focusing the diffracted beams having predetermined diffraction coefficients incident through the slit 400 onto the photosensitive surface of the photosensitive member 700; [0059]), wherein a position at which a focusing point of the focused light beam is formed (the single beam converted into parallel linear light by first lens unit 200 is focused, light modulation means 300 forms step heights between actuating cells 310 according to existence of applied drive power, thus forming a plurality of diffracted beams having 0th, +1st and 1st order diffraction coefficients via cylindrical lens 220 converting collimated light incident from collimator lens 210 into parallel linear light, and focusing parallel linear light onto light modulation means 300; [0063-64]).
Thus, Yun discloses the claimed invention except that second lens unit 500 is utilized instead of the scattering medium (e.g., light modulation means 300 acts as a variable diffraction grating for generating diffracted beams having 0th, +1st and -1st order diffraction coefficients; [0049]). Yun shows that the second lens unit 500 is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute second lens unit 500 for the scattering medium converting the two-dimensional beam obtained in the second conversion step into a focused light beam, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP § 2144.06 and 2143(I)(B).
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 spatial light modulation device of Yun to further include the technical feature of light modulation means acting as a variable diffraction grating for generating diffracted beams and a lens unit focusing a light beam while also converting light beams, for the advantageous purpose of finely adjusting levels of step heights for performing true grayscale control of adjusting the intensity of diffracted beams having 0th, +1st and -1st order diffraction coefficients in an analog manner, as taught by Yun ([0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Reddy et al. US 20170017075 A1 discloses an apparatus and method for controlling propagation and/or transmission similar to that of the claimed invention. Furuya et al. US 20070252918 A1 discloses an image display apparatus similar to that of the claimed invention. Kroll et al. US 20170357098 A1 discloses a combined light modulation device similar to that of the claimed invention. Fujii et al. US 20040104902 A1 discloses a display device similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 21 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872