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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on JP2023-137798 dated 08/28/2023.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashige (US 20180142840 A1) and further in view of Ota (US 5619488 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kurashige teaches in Figs. 1 and 2: an optical scanning device (Fig. 1) that causes beams emitted from a plurality of light sources (“light source units 17a, 17b and 17c”; [0077], Fig. 1) to be incident on a rotary polygon mirror (“polygonal mirror 31 is rotated”; [0085], see Fig. 1), the optical scanning device comprising:
a first expander (“beam expander 21”; [0082], Fig. 2) that expands the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources (17) in a main scanning direction (“beam expander 21 shapes a laser light emitted from the laser light source 15 into a divergent light flux”; [0082]),
wherein the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources (17) are incident on the first expander lens (see Fig. 2 in which the beams emitted from the light source 17 are incident on the beam expander 21), the first expander being a single item (21 is depicted as a single element in Fig. 2), and
the plurality of light sources (17) are disposed with optical paths of the beams from the plurality of light sources to the rotary polygon mirror (31) overlapping each other in the main scanning direction when viewed from a direction along a rotary shaft of the rotary polygon mirror (“the shaping optical system 20 divides a laser light emitted from the laser light source 15 into a plurality of light fluxes lf2”; [0083], see Fig. 2 in which the beam paths are separated and incident on the polygon mirror).
Although the beam expander of Kurashiki behaves like a lens (“beam expander 21 shapes a laser light emitted from the laser light source 15 into a divergent light flux”; [0082]), Kurashige fails to explicitly state in the disclosure that the first expander is a single lens.
In a related invention in the field of optical scanning devices, Ota teaches in Fig. 11: the first expander is a single lens (“laser light is expanded by a cylindrical lens 4 of a concave lens”; col 11 lines 25-26).
Furthermore, Ota teaches this configuration such that “the laser light is expanded by a cylindrical lens 4 of a concave lens, and then is collimated again by a cylindrical lens 5. The collimated laser light is regulated by an optical stop 6, and is imaged on a mirror 8a of a polygon mirror 8 by a cylindrical lens 7 as a convex lens” (Ota, col 11 lines 25-30).
Therefore, 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 Kurashige to incorporate the teachings of Ota to provide a device in which the first beam expander is a single lens, for the purpose of ensuring that each light beam is imaged at the polygon mirror with a sufficient focus (Ota, col 11 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 2, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 1. Kurashiki further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein the plurality of light sources are linearly disposed in a sub-scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction (“since three laser lights (laser beams) emitted from the light source units 17a, 17b and 17c are overlapped”; [0077], see Fig. 1 in which the laser sources are linearly disposed in the sub scanning direction. See also annotated Figure 1 below which illustrates the orthogonal relationship between the light sources and the main scanning direction. Further, see para [0039] of the instant application which defines the scanning directions as “directions in which the beams LB are scanned … correspond to directions in which the light expands.” Therefore, the sub-scanning direction corresponds to the vertical direction as illustrated in Figure 1 below as the light beam expands vertically in the sub-scanning direction before it expands horizontally in the main scanning direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 2 of Kurashige
Regarding claim 3, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 1. Kurashiki further teaches in Fig. 2: a cylindrical lens that changes an incident angle with respect to the rotary polygon mirror (31) in a sub-scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction (“the collimation lens 22 and the element lenses 24 of the lens array 23 in the shaping optical system 20 may respectively be formed as cylindrical lenses extending to have a certain cross-sectional shape in the depth direction of the sheet plane of FIG. 2”; [0084], see the beam path of Fig. 2 in which the cylindrical lens changes the incident angle with respect to the polygon mirror 31 in the sub-scanning direction as shown in annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 1. Kurashige fails to teach: wherein a second expander lens that collimates beams is disposed in an area from the first expander lens to the rotary polygon mirror in an optical path from the plurality of light sources to the rotary polygon mirror. However, in an alternate invention in the field of optical scanning systems Ota teaches in Fig. 11: wherein a second expander lens that collimates beams (“collimated again by a cylindrical lens 5”; col 17 lines 26-27) is disposed in an area from the first expander lens (“laser light is expanded by a cylindrical lens 4 of a concave lens”; col 11 lines 25-26) to the rotary polygon mirror (“polygon mirror 8”; col 11 lines 28-29) in an optical path from the plurality of light sources (“laser array 1”; col 10 line 54) to the rotary polygon mirror (see Fig. 11 in which collimator 5 is located at a position between first expander 4 and polygon mirror 8). Furthermore, Ota teaches this configuration such that “the laser light is expanded by a cylindrical lens 4 of a concave lens, and then is collimated again by a cylindrical lens 5. The collimated laser light is regulated by an optical stop 6, and is imaged on a mirror 8a of a polygon mirror 8 by a cylindrical lens 7 as a convex lens” (Ota, col 11 lines 25-30).
Therefore, 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 Kurashige to incorporate the teachings of Ota to provide a device in which a second expander lens that collimates beams is disposed in an area from the first expander lens to the rotary polygon mirror in an optical path from the plurality of light sources to the rotary polygon mirror, for the purpose of ensuring that each light beam arrives at polygon mirror (Ota, col 11 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 8, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 1. Kurashige fails to explicitly disclose: an image forming device comprising: the optical scanning device according to claim 1.
However, in a related invention in the field of optical scanners Ota teaches: an image forming device comprising: the optical scanning device according to claim 1 (“an image forming optical system for focusing the plurality of laser beams from the deflecting unit on a photoreceptor”; abstract)
Furthermore, Ota teaches this configuration comprising “a laser beam modulated by an image signal is applied to a polygon scanner revolving at a high speed. The laser beam is reflected by the scanner, and scans the surface of a recording medium, e.g., a photoreceptor, in the main scan direction, to form a latent image on the surface. The latent image is developed into a toner image. The toner image is transferred onto a sheet of recording paper” (Ota, col 1 lines 17-24).
Therefore, 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 Kurashige to incorporate the teachings of Ota to provide a device in which an image forming device comprises the optical scanning device, for the purpose of forming an image on a recording medium using the optical scanning device (Ota, col 1 lines 17-24).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashige (US 20180142840 A1) and Ota (US 5619488 A) as in claim 3, and further in view of Sakai (US 20070253048 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 3. Kurashiki and Ota fail to explicitly teach: wherein the cylindrical lens is integrated with the first expander lens.
However, in a related invention in the field of optical scanners Sakai teaches in Fig. 15: the cylindrical lens is integrated with the first expander lens (“The anamorphic lens 104c is obtained by forming the surface on its entrance side with a cylindrical surface having the power only in the sub-scanning direction and forming the surface on its exit side with a step-shaped diffractive surface having elliptical diffraction grooves. A curvature radius of the entrance surface in the sub-scanning direction is 63.4 millimeters. The exit surface is the diffractive surface”; [0259]).
Furthermore, Sakai teaches this configuration such that “The exit surface is the diffractive surface, so that a divergent light, a reflected light, and a diffracted light of an unnecessary diffraction order are prevented from returning to the light source” (Sakai, [0259]).
Therefore, 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 Kurashige and Ota to incorporate the teachings of Sakai to provide a device in which the cylindrical lens is integrated with the first expander lens, for the purpose of prevented unnecessary diffraction from returning to the light source (Sakai, [0259]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashige (US 20180142840 A1) and Ota (US 5619488 A) as in claim 1, and further in view of Yokoi (US 20230176364 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 1. Kurashige and Ota fail to teach: a housing to which the plurality of light sources are attached, wherein the housing includes openings that narrow the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources.
However, in a related invention in the field of optical scanners Yokoi teaches in Figs. 1 and 4: a housing (“frame F”; [0075]) to which the plurality of light sources are attached (“coupling lenses 20 are lenses for converting light received from the semiconductor lasers 10 to light”; [0074], see Fig. 1 in which light sources 10 are attached to frame F), wherein the housing (F) includes openings that narrow the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources (“the diaphragm 30 is formed integrally with the frame F and has aperture stops 31 through which light beams from the coupling lenses 20 pass”; [0075], see also Fig. 4 which shows the narrowing of the beam path due to the aperture stops 31).
Furthermore, Yokoi teaches this configuration such that “light emitted from each of the semiconductor lasers 10Y to 10K is converted to a light beam BY to BK when passing through a corresponding coupling lens 20Y to 20K. The beams BY to BK pass through respective aperture stops 31Y to 31K of the diaphragm 30, and then through the condenser lens 40, and strike a reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 51” (Yokoi, [0104]).
Therefore, 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 Kurashige and Ota to incorporate the teachings of Yokoi to provide a device comprising a housing to which the plurality of light sources are attached, wherein the housing includes openings that narrow the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources, for the purpose of narrowing the beam in order to strike a reflecting surface of the polygon mirror (Yokoi, [0104]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashige (US 20180142840 A1) and Ota (US 5619488 A) as in claim 3, and further in view of Kim (US 7619800 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Kurashige and Ota teach the optical scanning device according to claim 3. Kurashige and Ota fail to explicitly teach: wherein the plurality of light sources are disposed with the incident angle of each of the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources on the rotary polygon mirror being asymmetric in the sub-scanning direction.
However, in a related invention in the field of optical scanning devices Kim teaches in Figs. 2 and 3: wherein the plurality of light sources are disposed with the incident angle of each of the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources (“first through fourth light sources 10a, 10b, 20a, and 20b”; col 5 lines 14-15) on the rotary polygon mirror (“deflectors 15 and 25”; col 4 line 3, “The first and second deflectors 15 and 25 may include a rotatable polygon mirror that is rotated by a motor”; col 5 lines 17-19) being asymmetric in the sub-scanning direction (“have asymmetric optical paths 19a, 19b, 19c and 19d with reference to the first and second deflectors 15 and 25”; col 4 lines 1-3, se Fig. 3).
Furthermore, Kim teaches this configuration such that “[a]n optical path of light scanned by the first sub-scanning optical system 300a and an optical path of light scanned by the third sub-scanning optical system 300c are asymmetric and an optical path of light scanned by the second sub-scanning optical system 300b and an optical path of light scanned by the fourth sub-scanning optical system 300d are asymmetric because the lengths that the light has to travel from the first and second deflectors 305a and 305b to the first and third imaging surfaces 30a and 30c and to the second and fourth imaging surfaces 30b and 30d, respectively, are different. The asymmetric optical paths satisfy a predetermined variation in linearity and a deviation in imaging portions, as illustrated in FIG. 3” (Kim, col 7 lines 5-18).
Therefore, 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 Kurashige and Ota to incorporate the teachings of Kim to provide a device in which the plurality of light sources are disposed with the incident angle of each of the beams emitted from the plurality of light sources on the rotary polygon mirror being asymmetric in the sub-scanning direction, due to the fact that the optical path from the each light source to the polygon mirror is different (Kim, col 7 lines 5-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20130014380 A1: an imaging optical system configured to image the multiple light beams deflected by the deflecting unit on a surface to be scanned. Fig. 5.
US 20240239040 A1: a laser system comprising a collimator and an expander, Fig. 5B.
US-20170090190-A1: an imaging optical system configured to image the multiple light beams deflected by the deflecting unit on a surface to be scanned. See Figs. 1A-B
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights