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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 8, and 10 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-11 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 15, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazawa (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2016099567 A – machine translation provided by Applicant – cited by Applicant) in view of Asai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0169880).
Regarding claim 1, Kitazawa teaches an electromagnetic wave deflection device (Figure 3 light deflector 12, [0015]) comprising:
a mirror (Figures 2 and 3 mirror portion 10 of optical scanning device 2, [0009]) configured to reflect an electromagnetic wave across a scanning range (Figure 2 optical scanning device 2, [0009]);
a controller (([0036] integrated circuit for driving the optical deflector 12) configured to incline the mirror (Figure 2 mirror portion 10 inclines, [0020] control the optical scanning device);
a housing (Figure 3 container 14) that accommodates the mirror and includes an opening (Figure 3 opening 14a, [0015] container 14 holds optical scanning device 2 and has opening 14a); and
a transmissive member (Figure 3 light transmitting member 16, [0015]) provided in the opening,
wherein the transmissive member is configured to transmit at least part of the electromagnetic wave ([0015] light transmitting member 16 transmits light),
wherein the housing includes a bottom surface (Figure 3 bottom surface 14b, [0015]) positioned on an opposite side from the opening (Figure 3 bottom 14b is opposite opening 14a), and
wherein the mirror is accommodated in the housing so as to be inclined relative to the bottom surface (Figure 3, [0015] optical scanning device 2 is fixed obliquely with respect to bottom 14b).
Kitazawa fails to teach the incline of the mirror is controlled such that an intensity of the reflected electromagnetic wave across the scanning range during a single period of scanning is equalized. However, Asai is related to Kitazawa with respect to optical scanners (Figure 1) and teaches the incline of the mirror is controlled such that an intensity of the reflected electromagnetic wave across the scanning range during a single period of scanning is equalized ([0072] enables reductions in variations in the intensity of the reflected light from the reflective surface with variations in the reflective-surface angle). Asai further teaches that reducing variations in the intensity of reflected with variations in the reflective surface angle makes it more easy to stabilize or uniform the intensity of scanning light over time ([0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning device taught by Kitazawa by controlling the incline of the mirror such that intensity of reflective light is equalized during a scanning period as taught by Asai in order to easily stabilize or uniform the intensity of the scanning light over time (Asai [0073]).
Regarding claim 2, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kitazawa further teaches wherein the mirror is configured to allow a posture of the mirror to be controlled so as to cause a predetermined range to be scanned with the electromagnetic wave reflected by the mirror (Figure 2a-c, [0011] optical scanning device 2 is configured to allow optical scanning within a predetermined range), and
wherein the mirror is accommodated in the housing so as to cause a reflected wave of an incident electromagnetic wave reflected by a surface of the transmissive member to travel to outside of the predetermined range (Figure 5, [0018] reflected light ORL (from incident light EL reflected by the surface of glass plate 22) is reflected in a direction that does not interfere with light deflector 12).
Regarding claim 4, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kitazawa further teaches the transmissive member (Figure 3 light transmitting member 16) is joined to the housing so as to be substantially parallel to the bottom surface of the housing or parallel to the bottom surface of the housing (Figure 3, [0018] light transmitting member 16 is parallel to bottom surface 14b).
Regarding claim 5, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kitazawa further teaches a substrate (Figure 3 device-receiving portion 18) configured to hold the mirror (Figure 3, [0015] optical scanning device 2 is fixed to device-receiving portion 18); and a placement portion on which the substrate is placed (Figure 3 bottom surface 14b), wherein the substrate is placed on the placement portion so as to be inclined relative to the bottom surface (Figure 4a inclined surface 14a of device-receiving portion 18, [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 5. Kitazawa further teaches the mirror is configured to be inclinable about the first axis extending along the substrate, and wherein the substrate is inclined about an axis along a direction intersecting the first axis (Figures 2 and 7 mirror portion 10 rotates about axis running through torsion bar 8 which extends along device-receiving portion 18 and device-receiving portion 18 is inclined about an intersecting axis, see labeled figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kitazawa and Asai teach an electromagnetic wave deflection device according to claim 1 (Figure 3 optical deflector 12, see claim 1 above); and a radiation unit configured to cause the electromagnetic wave to be incident upon the transmissive member at a predetermined angle (Figure 19 light source unit 80, [0036] light source unit 80 is incident upon optical deflector 12).
Regarding claim 10, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 9. Kitazawa further teaches a controller configured to control a posture of the mirror so as to cause a predetermined range to be scanned with the electromagnetic wave reflected by the mirror ([0036] integrated circuit for driving the optical deflector 12, [0020] control the optical scanning device),
wherein the mirror is accommodated in the housing so as to cause a reflected wave of an incident electromagnetic wave reflected by a surface of the transmissive member to travel to outside of the predetermined range (Figure 5, [0018] reflected light ORL (from incident light EL reflected by the surface of glass plate 22) is reflected in a direction that does not interfere with light deflector 12).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazawa (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2016099567 A) in view of Asai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0169880) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Uchikawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0073526).
Regarding claim 3, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Kitazawa and Asai fail to teach the mirror is configured to allow a posture of the mirror to be controlled so as not to allow a reflection surface for the electromagnetic wave to become parallel to the transmissive member. However, Uchikawa teaches an optical scanning element (Figure 1) where the mirror is configured to allow a posture of the mirror to be controlled so as not to allow a reflection surface for the electromagnetic wave to become parallel to the transmissive member ([0045]-[0046], [0048] light L2 reflected by first surface S1 of the transmissive member is in a different region from the light L1 reflected by the surface of the mirror 12). Uchikawa further teaches to avoid having the reflection surface of the mirror be substantially parallel to the transmissive member as doing so lower image quality due to the reflections occupying the same area (Figure 6, [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the mirror and transmissive member taught by Kitazawa and Asai to not have parallel reflection surfaces as taught by Uchikawa in order to avoid a lowering of image quality that occurs when the reflection surface of the mirror is substantially parallel to the transmissive member (Uchikawa [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Kitazawa further teaches a controller ([0036] integrated circuit for driving the optical deflector 12, [0020] control the optical scanning device). Kitazawa and Asai fail to teach the controller controls the posture of the mirror within a range in which a reflection surface of the mirror for the electromagnetic wave does not become parallel to the transmissive member. However, Uchikawa teaches an optical scanning element (Figure 1) where the posture of the mirror within a range in which a reflection surface of the mirror for the electromagnetic wave does not become parallel to the transmissive member ([0045]-[0046], [0048] light L2 reflected by first surface S1 of the transmissive member is in a different region from the light L1 reflected by the surface of the mirror 12). Uchikawa further teaches to avoid having the reflection surface of the mirror be substantially parallel to the transmissive member as doing so lower image quality due to the reflections occupying the same area (Figure 6, [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the mirror and transmissive member taught by Kitazawa and Asai to not have parallel reflection surfaces as taught by Uchikawa in order to avoid a lowering of image quality that occurs when the reflection surface of the mirror is substantially parallel to the transmissive member (Uchikawa [0047]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazawa (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2016099567 A) in view of Asai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0169880) as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Quenzer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0229356).
Regarding claim 6, Kitazawa and Asai teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 5. Kitazawa further teaches the mirror is configured to be inclinable about a first axis extending along the substrate (Figures 17 and 18 mirror portion 10 is inclinable about x-axis, [0031]) and the substrate is placed on the placement portion so as to be inclined about the first axis relative to the bottom surface (Figures 17 and 18 device-receiving portion 18 is inclined about x-axis, [0031] optical scanning device 52 has a configuration equivalent to optical scanning device 2 which has device-receiving portion 18).
Kitazawa and Asai fail to teach the substrate is inclined about the first axis relative to the bottom surface by an angle greater than double a first maximum inclination angle, the first maximum inclination angle being a maximum value of an inclination angle of the mirror relative to a surface of the transmissive member when the mirror is inclined about the first axis. However, Yamada teaches an optical scanning device (Figure 7) and optimizing the inclination of angle of a light transmission plate to be greater than two times the swing angle of the mirror ([0119]-[0121]) in order to prevent reflections from reaching the scan target surface and thus are excluded from the image ([0122]). Furthermore, 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). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the inclination angles of the mirror and substrate taught by Kitazawa and Asai in a manner similar to that taught by Yamada in order to prevent reflections from reaching the scan target surface (Yamada [0122]).
Regarding claim 7, Kitazawa, Asai, and Yamada teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 6. Kitazawa further teaches the mirror is further configured to be inclinable about a second axis that intersects the first axis and extends along the substrate (Figures 17 and 18, [0031] optical scanning device 50 is configured to scan along two axes),
Kitazawa and Asai fail to teach wherein, when a second maximum inclination angle is greater than the first maximum inclination angle, the second maximum inclination angle being a maximum value of an inclination angle of the mirror relative to the surface of the transmissive member while the mirror is inclined about the second axis, the substrate is placed on the placement portion so as to be inclined about the first axis relative to the bottom surface by an angle greater than double the first maximum inclination angle,
wherein, when the second maximum inclination angle is smaller than the first maximum inclination angle, the substrate is placed on the placement portion so as to be inclined about the second axis relative to the bottom surface by an angle greater than double the second maximum inclination angle, and
wherein, when the first maximum inclination angle and the second maximum inclination angle are equal to each other, the substrate is placed on the placement portion so as to be inclined about at least one of the first axis or the second axis relative to the bottom surface by an angle greater than double the first maximum inclination angle.
However, Yamada teaches an optical scanning device (Figure 7) and optimizing the inclination of angle of a light transmission plate to be greater than two times the swing angle of the mirror ([0119]-[0121]) in order to prevent reflections from reaching the scan target surface and thus are excluded from the image ([0122]). Furthermore, 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). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the inclination angles of the mirror and substrate taught by Kitazawa and Asai in a manner similar to that taught by Yamada in order to prevent reflections from reaching the scan target surface (Yamada [0122]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bevensee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0179193) teaches an optical scanner with an inclined adjustable mirror (Figure 5E).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights