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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Yamada (US Pub. 20090262098) teaches (in figures 3-5) a distance measurement device comprising: a MEMS device (MEMS mirror 13); a laser light source section (infrared laser 11); a light receiving section (photodiode 15); and a measurement section (distance measuring device 9) configured to measure a distance to a distance measurement object on a basis of flight time of a laser beam emitted from the laser light source section (paragraphs 78-80), wherein the MEMS device includes: a first mirror (main mirror portion 13A) and a second mirror (first mirror frame 13C); wherein the second mirror is configured as a perforated mirror having an opening at a center, and the first mirror is disposed at the opening.
Yasuda (US Pub. 20160341956) teaches (in figures 6 and 8) forming a MEMS device and a method for driving a MEMS device comprising a first actuator (inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b) and a second actuator (pair of meander-type outer piezoelectric actuators 606a and 606b); and a first support section (torsion bars 602a and 602b) and a second support section (outer coupling portions 603c and 603d), the first actuator is disposed between a first mirror (circular mirror 601) and a mirror frame (inner frame 603), the first support section connects the first mirror and the first actuator, and the second support section connects the mirror frame and the first actuator, and the mirror frame is connected to the second actuator via a beam (outer coupling portions 603c and 603d) vibrating the second actuator (pair of meander-type outer piezoelectric actuators 606a and 606b), the first mirror (circular mirror 601) and the mirror frame (inner frame 603) are integrally operated at a predetermined resonance frequency with a predetermined rotation axis (Y-axis), and the first actuator (inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b) (see paragraphs 80 and 106).
However, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing a MEMS device or a method of driving a MEMS device in which “the distance measurement object is irradiated with the laser beam by scanning the laser beam by the first mirror, and scattered light of the laser beam by the distance measurement object is reflected by the second mirror and enters the light receiving section” and “the first actuator is non-resonantly driven in synchronization with the predetermined resonance frequency so that the first mirror operates prior to the second mirror by a predetermined phase difference on the predetermined rotation axis” in combination with the other required elements of claims 8 and 15 respectively.
Claims 9-14 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the predetermined resonance frequency" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US Pub. 20090262098) in view of Yasuda (US Pub. 20160341956).
As per claim 1, Yamada teaches (in figures 4-5) a MEMS device comprising: a first mirror (main mirror portion 13A) and a second mirror (first mirror frame 13C); wherein the second mirror is configured as a perforated mirror having an opening at a center, and the first mirror is disposed at the opening.
Yamada does not teach a first actuator and a second actuator; and a first support section and a second support section, the first actuator is disposed between the first mirror and the second mirror, the first support section connects the first mirror and the first actuator, and the second support section connects the second mirror and the first actuator, and the second mirror is connected to the second actuator via a beam.
However, Yasuda teaches (in figures 6 and 8) forming a MEMS device to comprise a first actuator (inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b) and a second actuator (pair of meander-type outer piezoelectric actuators 606a and 606b); and a first support section (torsion bars 602a and 602b) and a second support section (outer coupling portions 603c and 603d), the first actuator is disposed between a first mirror (circular mirror 601) and a mirror frame (inner frame 603), the first support section connects the first mirror and the first actuator, and the second support section connects the second mirror and the first actuator, and the second mirror is connected to the second actuator via a beam (outer coupling portions 603c and 603d).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS device of Yamada to include the first and second actuators, first and second support sections, and the beam of Yasuda.
The motivation would have been to provide a driving means that requires low power.
As per claim 2, Yamada in view of Yasuda teaches that by vibrating the second actuator (pair of meander-type outer piezoelectric actuators 606a and 606b from Yasuda), the first mirror (main mirror portion 13A in Yamada corresponding to circular mirror 601 in Yasuda) and the second mirror (first mirror frame 13C in Yamada corresponding to inner frame 603 in Yasuda) are integrally operated at a predetermined resonance frequency with a predetermined rotation axis (rotation axis of 13D corresponding to Y-axis in Yamada), and the first actuator (inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda) is non-resonantly driven in synchronization with the predetermined resonance frequency so that the first mirror operates prior to the second mirror by a predetermined phase difference on the predetermined rotation axis (see paragraphs 80 and 106 in Yasuda).
Regarding the functional limitation “the first mirror and the second mirror are integrally operated at a predetermined resonance frequency with a predetermined rotation axis, and the first actuator is non-resonantly driven in synchronization with the predetermined resonance frequency so that the first mirror operates prior to the second mirror by a predetermined phase difference on the predetermined rotation axis” since the structure of the device of Yamada in view of Yasuda is identical to the claimed structure, the device of Yamada in view of Yasuda is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing 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.” in the instant case, the device Yamada in view of Yasuda comprises two sets of piezoelectric actuators from Yasuda that are driven independently (see paragraph 80 in Yasuda) and therefore capable of performing the recited function.
As per claim 3, Yamada in view of Yasuda teaches that the first actuator (inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda) is divided into at least two portions (semi-ring shaped inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda) and has a symmetrical shape with respect to a center line passing through a center of the first mirror (see figure 6).
As per claim 4, Yamada in view of Yasuda teaches that the first actuator (semi-ring shaped inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda) is divided into at least four portions (604a-1, 604a-2, 604a-3, 604b-1, 604b-2, 604b-3 from Yasuda) and has a symmetrical shape with respect to a center line passing through a center of the first mirror (see figure 8 of Yasuda).
As per claim 5, Yamada in view of Yasuda teaches that the first actuator (semi-ring shaped inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda) and the second actuator (pair of meander-type outer piezoelectric actuators 606a and 606b from Yasuda) include piezoelectric elements.
As per claim 6, Yamada in view of Yasuda teaches that wherein a natural vibration frequency of the first actuator (semi-ring shaped inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda) is larger than the predetermined resonance frequency (as the claim fails to specify that the predetermined resonance frequency is tied to any particular object the semi-ring shaped inner piezoelectric actuators 604a and 604b from Yasuda will have some natural vibration frequency which is higher than another frequency chosen to be the predetermined resonance frequency).
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US Pub. 20090262098) and Yasuda (US Pub. 20160341956) as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Aimono (US Pub. 20120224239).
As per claim 7, Yamada in view of Yasuda does not teach that the natural vibration frequency of the first actuator is larger than 20 kHz.
However, 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), for result effective variables (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)),
Aimono teaches that the natural vibration frequency of an actuator is a result effective variable in that if the natural vibration frequency is too large or too small higher frequency vibration will occur and that higher frequency vibrations can be avoided by setting the natural frequencies much larger than the fundamental frequency of the drive voltages (paragraphs 9-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the natural vibration frequency of the first actuator to be larger than 20 kHz in order to avoid higher frequency vibrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights