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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim 2 is objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/2/2025 and 10/6/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “107” (fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an optical scanner drive unit”, “an optical scanner sensor unit”, “an optical scanner sensor correction unit”, and “a delay processing unit” in claims 1-2 and 5-7; “a light source drive unit”, “an optical sensor unit”, “an optical sensor correction unit”, and “a delay processing unit” in claims 3-4, 5-6, and 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following limitations have been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and are accompanied by the corresponding structure described in the present specification.
An optical scanner drive unit
Piezoelectric actuator (paragraph [0032])
An optical scanner sensor unit
Piezoelectric sensor and processing circuit (paragraph [0034]
An optical scanner sensor correction unit
Correction circuit (paragraph [0035])
A delay processing unit
Control circuit (paragraph [0030])
A light source drive unit
**no corresponding structure** See the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below
An optical sensor unit
Light detector and processing circuit (paragraph [0041])
An optical sensor correction unit
Optical sensor correction circuit (paragraph [0048])
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.
Claim limitation “a light source drive unit” (claims 3-4, 5-6, and 8) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the present specification, the light source drive unit is only described in terms of its function relative to the light source (see at least paragraph [0015], a light source drive unit configured to output a drive signal to the light source). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3-4, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for being indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, 5, and 8, the claims include the limitation “a light source drive unit”.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claims 3 and/or 5 through their dependencies.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a mirror drive device wherein the optical scanner sensor correction unit is a circuit having the same response delay time as both the piezoelectric sensor and the optical scanner sensor signal processing circuit.
Claim 4 would be objected to, once the above stated rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is corrected, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a light source device wherein the optical sensor correction unit is a circuit having the same response delay time as both the light detector and the optical sensor signal processing circuit.
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.
(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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,282,155 to Yoshizawa et al. (hereafter Yoshizawa).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshizawa discloses a mirror drive device comprising: an optical scanner having a mirror configured to scan light (see at least Col. 2, lines 9-12, optical scanning device comprising a mirror portion); an optical scanner drive unit configured to output a drive signal to the optical scanner to drive the optical scanner (see at least Col. 2, lines 12-18, first and second actuators); an optical scanner sensor unit configured to output an optical scanner sensor signal corresponding to a deflection angle of the optical scanner (see at least Col. 2, lines 18-22, first and second angle detection sensors); an optical scanner sensor correction unit having the same response delay time as the optical scanner sensor unit; and a delay processing unit configured to input a delay detection signal to the optical scanner sensor correction unit to compute an output delay (see at least Col. 2, line 65 through Col. 3, line 22, where the processor derives a delay time and inputs that delay time).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshizawa discloses a correction method of a mirror drive timing of a device (see at least Col. 2, lines 4-8) including an optical scanner having a mirror configured to scan light (see at least Col. 2, lines 9-12, optical scanning device comprising a mirror portion), an optical scanner drive unit configured to output an optical scanner drive signal to the optical scanner to drive the optical scanner (see at least Col. 2, lines 12-18, first and second actuators), and an optical scanner sensor unit configured to output an optical scanner sensor signal corresponding to a deflection angle of the optical scanner (see at least Col. 2, lines 18-22, first and second angle detection sensors), the correction method comprising: acquiring a time from an output of the optical scanner drive signal to an output of the optical scanner sensor signal; acquiring an optical scanner sensor reproduction response delay time obtained by reproducing a response delay caused by the optical scanner sensor unit; and calculating a response time until the optical scanner reaches a deflection angle corresponding to the optical scanner drive signal by subtracting the optical scanner sensor reproduction response delay time from the time from the output of the optical scanner drive signal to the output of the optical scanner sensor signal (see at least Col. 2, line 65 through Col. 3, line 22).
Claims 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0097678 to Hajjar et al. (hereafter Hajjar).
Regarding claim 3, Hajjar discloses a light source device comprising: a light source; a light source drive unit configured to output a drive signal to the light source to cause the light source to emit light (see at least paragraph [0119], laser module); an optical sensor unit configured to detect the light from the light source to output an optical sensor signal (see at least paragraph [0119], feedback signal, green detector, blue detector); an optical sensor correction unit having the same response delay time as the optical sensor unit; and a delay processing unit configured to input a delay detection signal to the optical sensor correction unit to compute an output delay (see at least paragraph [0119], where the display processor calculates a delay to correct spatial alignment error and applies it to the laser module).
Regarding claim 5, Hajjar discloses an optical scanning device comprising: an optical scanner having a mirror configured to scan light (see at least Fig. 3); an optical scanner drive unit configured to output a drive signal to the optical scanner to drive the optical scanner (see at least Fig. 3); an optical scanner sensor unit configured to output an optical scanner sensor signal corresponding to a deflection angle of the optical scanner (see at least paragraph [0119], servo sensing unit); an optical scanner sensor correction unit having the same response delay time as the optical scanner sensor unit (see at least paragraph [0119], display processor that calculates and applies a delay); a light source; a light source drive unit configured to output a light source drive signal to the light source to cause the light source to emit light (see at least paragraph [0119], laser module); an optical sensor unit configured to detect the light from the light source to output an optical sensor signal (see at least paragraph [0119], feedback signal, green detector, blue detector); an optical sensor correction unit having the same response delay time as the optical sensor unit; and a delay processing unit configured to input a delay detection signal to at least one of the optical scanner sensor correction unit and the optical sensor correction unit to compute an output delay of each of the optical scanner sensor correction unit and the optical sensor correction unit (see at least paragraph [0119], where the display processor calculates a delay to correct spatial alignment error and applies it to the laser module).
Regarding claim 8, Hajjar discloses a correction method of a light source drive timing of a device (see at least paragraph [0119]) including a light source, a light source drive unit configured to output a light source drive signal to the light source to cause the light source to emit light (see at least paragraph [0119], laser module), and an optical sensor unit configured to detect the light from the light source to output an optical sensor signal (see at least paragraph [0119], feedback signal, green detector, blue detector), the correction method comprising: acquiring a time from an output of the light source drive signal to an output of the optical sensor signal; acquiring an optical sensor reproduction response delay time obtained by reproducing a response delay caused by the optical sensor unit; and calculating a response time until the light source emits the light caused by the light source drive signal by subtracting the optical sensor reproduction response delay time from the time from the output of the light source drive signal to the output of the optical sensor signal (see at least paragraph [0119], where the display processor calculates a delay to correct spatial alignment error and applies it to the laser module).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0097678 to Hajjar et al. (hereafter Hajjar) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 12,282,155 to Yoshizawa et al. (hereafter Yoshizawa).
Regarding claim 6, Hajjar discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Hajjar does not specifically disclose that the optical sensor correction unit corrects the output delay during a period in which the optical scanner is resonantly driven.
However, Yoshizawa teaches an optical scanning device (see at least Col. 2, lines 9-12, optical scanning device comprising a mirror portion) comprising an optical sensor correction unit that corrects the output delay (see at least Col. 2, line 65 through Col. 3, line 22, where the processor derives a delay time and inputs that delay time) during a period in which the optical scanner is resonantly driven (see at least Col. 13, lines 24-29).
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 device of Hajjar to include the teachings of Yoshizawa so that the optical sensor correction unit corrects the output delay during a period in which the optical scanner is resonantly driven for the purpose of employing a Lissajous scanning method (see at least Col. 7, lines 37-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,576,852 to Sawada et al. discloses a synchronization signal generating unit of an image forming apparatus (see at least the title and the abstract) comprising a scanning device with a laser wherein a delay is processed in order to correct the scan position of the laser beam (see at least Col. 21, lines 16-26).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
