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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. (US 2016/0202471) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0027088).
Regarding Claim 1, Oguro discloses an optical scanner, comprising:
a mirror (Fig. 1, reflector 20, Paragraph 0026), which has a reflective front surface (Fig. 1, reflecting surface 20a, Paragraph 0025) and a rear surface (Fig. 1, holder 30, Paragraph 0026) and is mounted to rotate about a mirror axis (Fig. 1, axis A, Paragraph 0026);
a motor (Fig. 1, stepper motor 41, Paragraph 0028), which is mounted to the mirror (Fig. 1, as shown) and has a rotating shaft (Fig. 1, rotational shaft 41a, Paragraph 0031), which rotates about a shaft axis parallel to the mirror axis (Fig. 1, axis of rotational shaft 41a is parallel to axis A, Paragraph 0031); and
a mechanical drive (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42, 30, 30b, 30c, 30d, 42a, 42b, 41b, Paragraph 0033), which is coupled between the rotating shaft and the mirror (Fig. 1, as shown) so as to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis responsively to rotation of the shaft (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0033, lines 4-6).
Oguro does not specifically disclose a motor which is mounted behind the mirror in proximity to the rear surface.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a motor which is mounted behind the mirror in proximity to the rear surface (Fig. 4, motor 101 is behind (under) the mirror M), for the purpose of insuring that the motor does not interfere along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro with a motor which is mounted behind the mirror in proximity to the rear surface, of Lee, for the purpose of insuring that the motor does not interfere along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Regarding Claim 2, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein the mechanical drive comprises a linkage (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42, 30, 30b, 30c, 30d, 42a, 42b, 41b, Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 3, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein the linkage comprises: a motor arm (Fig. 1, 42b is connected to 41a by way of 41b, Paragraph 0033) connected to the shaft of the motor; a mirror arm (Fig. 1, reflector holder 30 is connected to reflector 20, Paragraph 0033) connected to the mirror; and a linking arm (Fig. 1, 30b is connected to 42b by way of 30c, 30d, 42, and 42a Paragraph 0033) connected to the motor arm and to the mirror arm by respective bearings.
Regarding Claim 4, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein the mechanical drive comprises a cam connected to rotate with the shaft and a cam follower (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42 is in contact with rotational member 30d as the cam follower, Paragraph 0033), which is connected to the mirror (Fig. 1, rotational member 30d as the cam follower is connected to reflector 20 by way of 30, 30b, and 30c, Paragraph 0033) and rides on an outer surface of the cam as the cam rotates (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 5, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses comprising a motor controller (Fig. 2, CPU 101a, Paragraph 0044), which is configured to vary a rotational speed of the motor as a function of an angle of oscillation of the mirror (Fig. 5b, the rotor position can be advanced in steps (upwards) or retreated (downward), depending on the rotor position, thus the direction of the steps can change as a function of rotor position, thus the rotational speed is varied).
Regarding Claim 15, Oguro discloses a method for scanning, comprising:
mounting a mirror (Fig. 1, reflector 20, Paragraph 0026), which has a reflective front surface (Fig. 1, reflecting surface 20a, Paragraph 0025), to rotate about a mirror axis (Fig. 1, axis A, Paragraph 0026);
mounting a motor (Fig. 1, stepper motor 41, Paragraph 0028), having a rotating shaft, which rotates about a shaft axis (Fig. 1, rotational shaft 41a, Paragraph 0031), with the shaft axis parallel to the mirror axis (Fig. 1, axis of rotational shaft 41a is parallel to axis A, Paragraph 0031); and
coupling a mechanical drive (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42, 30, 30b, 30c, 30d, 42a, 42b, 41b, Paragraph 0033) between the rotating shaft and the mirror (Fig. 1, as shown) so as to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis responsively to rotation of the shaft (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0033, lines 4-6).
Oguro does not specifically disclose mounting a motor behind the mirror in proximity to a rear surface.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches mounting a motor behind the mirror in proximity to a rear surface (Fig. 4, motor 101 is behind (under) the mirror M), for the purpose of insuring that the motor does not interfere along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Oguro with mounting a motor behind the mirror in proximity to a rear surface, of Lee, for the purpose of insuring that the motor does not interfere along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Regarding Claim 16, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein coupling the mechanical drive comprises coupling a linkage between the rotating shaft and the mirror (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42, 30, 30b, 30c, 30d, 42a, 42b, 41b, Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 17, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein coupling the linkage comprises: connecting a motor arm (Fig. 1, 42b is connected to 41a by way of 41b, Paragraph 0033) to the shaft of the motor; connecting a mirror arm (Fig. 1, reflector holder 30 is connected to reflector 20, Paragraph 0033) to the mirror; and connecting a linking arm (Fig. 1, 30b is connected to 42b by way of 30c, 30d, 42, and 42a Paragraph 0033) to the motor arm and to the mirror arm by respective bearings.
Regarding Claim 18, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein coupling the mechanical drive comprises: connecting a cam to rotate with the shaft (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42 is in contact with rotational member 30d as the cam follower, Paragraph 0033); connecting a cam follower to the mirror (Fig. 1, rotational member 30d as the cam follower is connected to reflector 20 by way of 30, 30b, and 30c, Paragraph 0033); and positioning the cam follower to ride on an outer surface of the cam as the cam rotates (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 19, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above and Oguro further discloses wherein comprising varying a rotational speed of the motor (Fig. 2, CPU 101a, Paragraph 0044) as a function of an angle of oscillation of the mirror (Fig. 5b, the rotor position can be advanced in steps (upwards) or retreated (downward), depending on the rotor position, thus the direction of the steps can change as a function of rotor position, thus the rotational speed is varied).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. (US 2016/0202471) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0027088), further in view of Karasaki et al. (US 6,556,331).
Regarding Claim 6, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein comprising a sensor, which is coupled to sense an angle of rotation of a component of the scanner, wherein the motor controller is configured to control the motor responsively to an output of the sensor.
However, Karasaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising a sensor, which is coupled to sense an angle of rotation of a component of the scanner (Col. 8, lines 66-67, a position sensor, Col. 9, lines 1-2, position sensor detects the orientation of the mirror), wherein the motor controller is configured to control the motor responsively to an output of the sensor (Col. 9, lines 2-3, position control unit ajust the reflecting direction of the mirror), for the purpose of accurately positioning a scanning beam of an optical scanner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro in view of Lee with the comprising a sensor, which is coupled to sense an angle of rotation of a component of the scanner, wherein the motor controller is configured to control the motor responsively to an output of the sensor, of Karasaki, for the purpose of accurately positioning a scanning beam of an optical scanner.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. (US 2016/0202471) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0027088), further in view of Uchiyama et al. (US 2004/0181148).
Regarding Claim 7, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the mechanical drive is configured to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a sawtooth scan pattern.
However, Uchiyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mechanical drive is configured to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a sawtooth scan pattern (Paragraph 0417, lines 1-7, sawtooth signals for scanning), for the purpose of scanning in a two-dimensional direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro in view of Lee with the wherein the mechanical drive is configured to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a sawtooth scan pattern, of Uchiyama, for the purpose of scanning in a two-dimensional direction.
Regarding Claim 20, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein coupling the mechanical drive causes the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a sawtooth scan pattern.
However, Uchiyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein coupling the mechanical drive causes the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a sawtooth scan pattern (Paragraph 0417, lines 1-7, sawtooth signals for scanning), for the purpose of scanning in a two-dimensional direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Oguro in view of Lee with the wherein coupling the mechanical drive causes the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a sawtooth scan pattern, of Uchiyama, for the purpose of scanning in a two-dimensional direction.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. (US 2016/0202471) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0027088), further in view of Frontino (US 5,010,242).
Regarding Claim 8, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the mechanical drive is configured to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a triangular scan pattern.
However, Frontino, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mechanical drive is configured to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a triangular scan pattern (Col. 7, lines 62-68, and Col. 8, lines 1-5, triangular driving signal), for the purpose of avoiding “jerky” motion of the mirror.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro in view of Lee with the wherein the mechanical drive is configured to cause the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a triangular scan pattern, of Frontino, for the purpose of avoiding “jerky” motion of the mirror.
Regarding Claim 21, Oguro in view of Lee discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein coupling the mechanical drive causes the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a triangular scan pattern
However, Frontino, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein coupling the mechanical drive causes the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a triangular scan pattern (Col. 7, lines 62-68, and Col. 8, lines 1-5, triangular driving signal), for the purpose of avoiding “jerky” motion of the mirror.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Oguro in view of Lee with the wherein coupling the mechanical drive causes the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis in a triangular scan pattern, of Frontino, for the purpose of avoiding “jerky” motion of the mirror.
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.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oguro et al. (US 2016/0202471).
Regarding Claim 9, Oguro discloses an optical scanner, comprising:
a mirror (Fig. 1, reflector 20, Paragraph 0026), which is mounted to rotate about a mirror axis (Fig. 1, axis A, Paragraph 0026);
a cam (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42 rotates around axis 42a, Paragraphs 0032-0033), which is mounted to rotate about a cam axis;
a motor (Fig. 1, stepper motor 41, Paragraph 0028), which is coupled to drive the cam to rotate about the cam axis (Fig. 1, stepper motor 41 is connected to cam 42 by way of 41b and 42b, Paragraph 0028); and
a cam follower (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42 is in contact with rotational member 30d as the cam follower, the cam follower is connected to reflector 20 by way of 30, 30b, and 30c, Paragraph 0033), which is connected to the mirror (Fig. 1, cam follower 30d is connected to mirror by way of 30, 30b, and 30c) and rides on an outer surface of the cam as the cam rotates, thereby causing the mirror to oscillate about the mirror axis (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0033, lines 1-11).
Regarding Claim 13, Oguro discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the cam has a non-symmetrical flattened side (Fig. 1, cam mechanism 42 id non-symmetrical with a flattened side, Paragraphs 0032-0033).
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 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. (US 2016/0202471) in view of Hughes (US 6,069,726).
Regarding Claim 10, Oguro discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein comprising a spring, which is coupled between the mirror and the motor to maintain contact between the cam follower and the cam.
However, Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising a spring, which is coupled between the mirror and the motor to maintain contact between the cam follower and the cam (Col. 4, lines 32-65), for the purpose of providing an application-specific scan profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro with the comprising a spring, which is coupled between the mirror and the motor to maintain contact between the cam follower and the cam, of Hughes, for the purpose of providing an application-specific scan profile.
Regarding Claim 11, Oguro discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the motor is mounted behind the mirror.
However, Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the motor is mounted behind the mirror (Fig. 1, motor 116 applies force via the cam 112 which includes the rotational shaft, which is below the mirror 102, Col. 4, lines 14-17), for the purpose of insuring that there is no interference along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro with the wherein the motor is mounted behind the mirror of Hughes, for the purpose of insuring that there is no interference along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Regarding Claim 12, Oguro in view of Hughes discloses as is set forth above and Hughes further discloses wherein the cam follower is positioned behind the mirror (Fig. 1, cam follower 106 is below the mirror 102, Col. 4, lines 14-17), for the purpose of insuring that there is no interference along the line of sight of the scanned light beam.
Regarding Claim 14, Oguro discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the cam has a mirror-image symmetry in a plane containing the cam axis.
However, Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the cam has a mirror-image symmetry in a plane containing the cam axis (Fig. 1, cam 112 has mirror-image symmetry in the plane containing the cam axis, which is the center of cam 112, Col. 4, lines 32-65), for the purpose of providing an application-specific scan profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical scanner of Oguro with the wherein the cam has a mirror-image symmetry in a plane containing the cam axis, of Hughes, for the purpose of providing an application-specific scan profile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benner, Jr. (US 2011/0101209), Imaizumi (US 2015/0378149), Imaizumi (US 9,964,753), Yamaguchi (US 2008/0296474), Noh et al. (US 8,054,520), Noh et al. (US 2010/0073749), Imaizumi (US 2017/0315429), and Matsumoto et al. (US 5,755,500) are cited to show similar scanning devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights