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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 06/17/2024. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- In [0026], lines 23-24 “the pair of second frame bodies 240 as a rotation axis.” should be “the pair of second torsion bars 250 as a rotation axis.”
- In [0033] line 17, “which is corresponds” should be “which corresponds.”
- In [0054] lines 27-28, “the second first direction Y” should be “the second direction Y.”
- In [0063], lines 25-27, “the second light-receiving element 14 is emitted from the second light-emitting element 12…” should be “the second light-receiving element 14 receives from the second light-emitting element 12…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/687241 in view of Yamada et al. (CN103415781A, “Yamada”).
Regarding Claims 1-6, a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claims 1-7of application 18/687241 (the difference is in the bold text).
Instant application 18/721171
Application 18/687241
Claim 1 An optical device comprising:
Claim 1 An optical scanning device comprising:
a movable reflection body;
a movable reflector;
a first light-emitting element attached to the movable reflection body;
a first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector;
an aperture through which at least a portion of light emitted from the first light-emitting element passes;
and a first light-receiving element that receives the light having passed through the aperture.
and a first light-receiving element detecting light emitting from the first light-emitting element
Claim 2, The optical device according to claim 1, wherein a light-shielding body that defines the aperture shields a portion of the light emitted from the first light-emitting element.
Claim 2, 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.
Claim 3, The optical device according to claim 1, wherein the first light-receiving element has a plurality of light-receiving areas segmented in a moving direction of a spot generated in the first light-receiving element by the light.
Claim 3, 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.
Claim 4, The optical device according to claim 1, wherein an opening area of at least a portion of the aperture on a side where the first light-receiving element is positioned is larger than an opening area of at least a portion of the aperture on a side where the first light-emitting element is positioned.
Claim 4, The optical scanning device according to any one of Claim 1, 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.
Claim 5, The optical device according to claim 1, wherein a spot generated in the first light-receiving element by the light is smaller than a light-receiving area of the first light-receiving element.
Claim 5, The optical scanning device according to Claim 4, 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.
Claim 6, The optical scanning device according to Claim 5, wherein a resin body is provided over at least a part of the frame body.
Claim 6, A sensor device comprising: the optical device according to claim 1;
Claim 7, the optical scanning device according to Claim 1
a second light-emitting element;
a second light-emitting element;
and a second light-receiving element that receives light emitted from the second light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflection body, and reflected or scattered by an object present outside the optical device.
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.
Regarding claim 1, 18/687241 does not explicitly teach a first light-emitting element attached to the movable reflection body; an aperture through which at least a portion of light emitted from the first light-emitting element passes; and a first light-receiving element that receives the light having passed through the aperture.
However, Yamada ([0046]- [0048]; Figs. 8, [0109]) teaches
a first light-emitting element attached to the movable reflection body. In particular, LED 68 is mounted on LED substrate 68a, substrate 68a is secured to LED-substrate fixing arm 68b, and fixing arm 68b is mounted in hole 67a of support shaft 67. Mirror 69 is fitted to stepped portion 67d of the same support shaft 67. Thus, LED 68 is mechanically connected to and supported with mirror 69 through support shaft 67.
an aperture (at least Figs. 8, pinhole plate 83 having pinhole 83a) through which at least a portion of light emitted from the first light-emitting element passes ([0068] states that opening 82c guides servo light emitted by LED 68 through pinhole 83a toward PSD 85. [0069] states that pinhole 83a passes a portion of the diffused light emitted by LED 68. [0110]- [0111] likewise disclose that part of the servo light from LED 68 passes through pinhole 83a. See Figs. 4 and 8.);
a first light-receiving element (at least Figs. 8, PSD 85) that receives the light having passed through the aperture ([0070] states that PSD 85 outputs a signal corresponding to the photosensitive position of the servo light. [0110]- [0112] state that the servo light emitted by LED 68 passes through pinhole 83a and is received by PSD 85; rotation of reflector 69 shifts the optical path from LP1 to LP2 and changes the irradiation position on PSD 85. See Figs. 8.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first light-emitting element installed over the movable reflector of 18/687241, as taught by Yamada, so that the light-emitting element is mechanically attached to the movable reflection body through a common supporting structure, because such an arrangement maintains a fixed positional relationship between the light emitting element and the movable reflector during movement of the reflector, thereby permitting the emitted servo-light position to reliably indicate the rotational position of the movable reflector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify 18/687241, as taught by Yamada, to provide an aperture between the first light-emitting element and the first light receiving element through which the emitted light passes before reception, because the aperture restricts and spatially defines the light incident on the detector, thereby permitting the detector output to accurately indicate movement of the movable reflector.
For claims 2-6, similar analysis can be made to show the instant claims are obvious variations of claims 2-7, with references cited in the prior art rejections below. In the interest of brevity, please see rejections in the prior art section.
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 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (CN103415781A, “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches an optical device ([0001], claim 1, Laser Radar) comprising:
a movable reflection body (Figs. 2(a), 3, 5, 6 (a) and 8, [0045], [0075]- [0077], [0112], claims 1 and 3, rotating mirror 69);
a first light-emitting element (Figs. 8, [0109], LED 68) attached to the movable reflection body ([0046]- [0048]; Figs. 8, [0109], Yamada teaches a first light-emitting element attached to the movable reflection body. In particular, LED 68 is mounted on LED substrate 68a, substrate 68a is secured to LED-substrate fixing arm 68b, and fixing arm 68b is mounted in hole 67a of support shaft 67. Mirror 69 is fitted to stepped portion 67d of the same support shaft 67. Thus, LED 68 is mechanically connected to and supported with mirror 69 through support shaft 67.);
an aperture (at least Figs. 8, pinhole plate 83 having pinhole 83a) through which at least a portion of light emitted from the first light-emitting element passes ([0068] states that opening 82c guides servo light emitted by LED 68 through pinhole 83a toward PSD 85. [0069] states that pinhole 83a passes a portion of the diffused light emitted by LED 68. [0110]- [0111] likewise disclose that part of the servo light from LED 68 passes through pinhole 83a. See Figs. 4 and 8.); and
a first light-receiving element (at least Figs. 8, PSD 85) that receives the light having passed through the aperture ([0070] states that PSD 85 outputs a signal corresponding to the photosensitive position of the servo light. [0110]- [0112] state that the servo light emitted by LED 68 passes through pinhole 83a and is received by PSD 85; rotation of reflector 69 shifts the optical path from LP1 to LP2 and changes the irradiation position on PSD 85. See Figs. 8.).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the optical device according to Claim 1, wherein a light-shielding body that defines the aperture shields a portion of the light emitted from the first light-emitting element ([0068], [0111], the servo light incident on the area other than the pin hole 83a is blocked by the pin hole plate 83).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches a sensor device ([0001], claim 1, Laser Radar) comprising:
the optical device according to Claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1);
a second light-emitting element (Yamada discloses laser light source 21 as part of laser unit 20. [0083]- [0085] state that laser source 21 emits an approximately 900-nm laser beam toward reflector 69. See Figs. 6(a), 7, and 8(a).); and
a second light-receiving element (at least [0107], a light detector 33) that receives light emitted from the second light-emitting element, reflected by the movable reflection body, and reflected or scattered by an object present outside the optical device (at least [0107], the laser beam is emitted from the laser light source 21 at a predetermined scanning position in the target area. Then, the reflected light from the target area enters the case 10, and is reflected toward the photodetector 33 by the mirror 69 of the mirror actuator 25).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Trethewey et al. (US 4466088 A, “Trethewey”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches the optical device according to Claim 1, wherein the first light-receiving element (has a plurality of light-receiving areas segmented) in a moving direction of a spot generated in the first light-receiving element by the light (Yamada teaches that movement of reflector 69 shifts the servo-light path from LP1 to LP2, thereby moving the irradiation spot across PSD 85 ([0112]).
Yamada does not explicitly disclose that PSD 85 has a plurality of separately segmented receiving areas.
However, Trethewey teaches an optical position-monitoring system for determining the angular position of a movable galvanometer mirror gm. The system includes infrared emitter 41, fixed reflector 21, focusing lens 23, and detector 31. The infrared beam is directed by reflector 21 onto movable mirror gm, reflected through lens 23, and focused onto detector 31. Trethewey explains that rotation of the galvo mirror changes the wavefront of the reflected beam and causes the image of emitter 41 to shift laterally across the detector in the direction of beam deflection. See Trethewey, col. 4, ll. 25–43 and 55–68; col. 5, ll. 1–14; Figs. 2–5. Thus, Trethewey links movement of the movable mirror to movement of a focused optical spot across the light-receiving surface.
Trethewey further teaches, in the modified embodiments of Figs. 12 and 13, that the detector may be a segmented position sensor rather than a continuous lateral cell. In the Fig. 12 embodiment, light reflected by the back surface of the galvo mirror is focused onto a split-cell or bi-cell detector sD. Trethewey states that the arrangements of Figs. 12 and 13 use “segmented position sensors,” including quadrant and bi-cell detectors, which provide greater position sensitivity and resolution. See col. 9, ll. 20–35 and 42–61; Figs. 12–13.
More particularly, Trethewey describes the quadrant detector as a monolithic structure having four distinct, separated active areas, with the detector signals identifying the position of the spot centroid. See col. 9, ll. 63–68 through col. 10, ll. 1–15. Trethewey also teaches that the bi-cell detector has two active areas and indicates the position of the light spot relative to the boundary between those areas. See col. 10, ll. 16–25. Accordingly, when the segmented detector is arranged to sense the disclosed lateral displacement of the spot caused by movement of the galvo mirror, Trethewey teaches a light-receiving element having a plurality of light-receiving areas segmented in the moving direction of the spot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada, as taught by Trethewey, to provide PSD 85 with a plurality of physically segmented light-receiving areas arranged in the moving direction of the servo-light spot, because Trethewey teaches that a quadrant or bi-cell detector provides increased position sensitivity and resolution and generates an output indicative of the spot position for accurately monitoring and controlling the angular position of a movable mirror.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2018/0299099 A1, “Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada fails to explicitly teach the optical device according to Claim 1, wherein an opening area of at least a portion of the aperture on a side where the first light receiving element is positioned is larger than an opening area of at least a portion of the aperture on a side where the first light emitting element is positioned.
However, Yamaguchi discloses visible-light guide member 20 having through-hole 24 with first opening 25 formed on the side facing LED 11 and second opening 26 formed on the side opposite LED 11, wherein second opening 26 has an area larger than first opening 25. Yamaguchi further teaches that through-hole 24 may have a frustum or truncated-conical shape connecting the smaller LED-side opening to the larger opposite-side opening. See Yamaguchi [0007]- [0008] and Figs. 3–4.
Yamaguchi discloses that through-hole 24 has a truncated-conical shape, first opening 25 is located at the surface facing LED 11, second opening 26 is located at the opposite surface, and conical side surface 27 reflects the LED light with high reflectance. See Yamaguchi [0029]- [0034], particularly Figs. 3- 4.
Thus, when Yamaguchi’s aperture configuration is applied to Yamada’s pinhole 83a, the smaller first opening would face LED 68 and the larger second opening would face PSD 85, thereby producing an aperture whose opening area on the first light receiving element side is larger than its opening area on the first light emitting element side, as required by claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada, as taught by Yamaguchi, to form pinhole 83a as a widening or truncated conical aperture having a smaller opening on the LED 68 side and a larger opening on the PSD 85 side, because Yamaguchi teaches that the smaller source-side opening limits the initially admitted radiation, while the reflective widening surface efficiently guides and condenses the admitted light toward the downstream optical region, thereby increasing useful illumination and reducing light outside the intended optical path. See Yamaguchi [0012]- [0014], [0041], and [0043]. The modification would predictably improve the delivery of Yamada’s servo light to PSD 85 while maintaining Yamada’s pinhole plate function of blocking undesired light.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yap et al. (US 2015/0177381 A1, “Yap”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada fails to explicitly teach the optical device according to Claim 1, wherein a spot generated in the first light-receiving element by the light is smaller than a light-receiving area of the first light-receiving element.
However, Yap discloses an optical position sensor employing an array 60 of lateral-effect position-sensing detector elements 62. A focusing lens 22 projects focused or nearly focused light onto the detector array, and each LEPSD element determines the location of the light spot incident on its receiving area. See Yap [0004] and Figs. 1–2. Yap explains that an LEPSD senses the position of a small focused or nearly focused spot and that movement of the spot is detected based on the spot’s position on the light-detecting area.
More particularly, Yap [0045] teaches that the light may be focused as a small spot having a size of less than approximately 60 μm and smaller than the size of an LEPSD element 62. Yap further explains in [0046] that focused or nearly focused light is projected by lens 22 onto LEPSD array 60 and that the detector continuously senses a moving spot as it traverses the receiving elements. See Yap Figs. 1, 2, and 6.
Yap [0068] likewise states that the spot projected onto LEPSD array 60 should be substantially smaller than the size of an LEPSD element 62, while remaining larger than the spacing between adjacent elements, as shown in Fig. 6. Yap explains that the sharply focused or nearly focused small spot permits the illuminated-spot locating detector to determine spot position and improves tolerance to nonuniform illumination arising from speckle, or partial aperture occlusion. Yap claim 10 additionally recites that the size of the nearly focused spot is “substantially smaller than a size of each LEPSD element.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada, as taught by Yap, to configure the servo optical path such that the spot generated on PSD 85 is smaller than the light-receiving area of PSD 85, because Yap teaches that a focused spot smaller than the receiving element permits the spot location to be determined over the receiving area, supports continuous detection as the spot moves, and reduces sensitivity to nonuniform illumination and partial obstruction of the optical path. So, permitting accurate determination of the moving spot position over the receiving area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamota et al. (JP H07128602 A), teaches optical scanner and its scanning position discriminating method and optical device
Aschwanden et al. (US 20180267294 A1), teaches device for tilting an optical element, particularly a mirror
Costello et al. (US 8779361 B2), teaches Optical Proximity Sensor Package with Molded Infrared Light Rejection Barrier and Infrared Pass Components
Tang et al. (US 7755029 B2), teaches Optical Navigator Sensor and Optical Navigator Apparatus Using the Same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights