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 .
2. This office action is responsive to the application Nº 18/951145 filed on November 18th, 2024, in which claims 1-19 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
4. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 11/18/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Double Patenting
5. 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).
6. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© 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).
7. 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€ and 714.13.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application Nº 17/481,824 with publication number 2022/0100118. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are essentially directed to the same subject matter.
10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al. (US Pub. Nº 2011/0134501), in view of Hori et al. (US Pub. Nº 2002/0164157) and Kudo et al. (US Pub. Nº 2016/0223812).
14. Regarding independent claim 1: Motoyama et al. disclosed an apparatus ([0089], line 1; also see Fig. 1, reference 100) comprising:
a deflecting unit ([0140], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2, reference 320) configured to deflect a light flux (Fig. 2, reference Lo) from a light source (Fig. 2, reference 311) to scan a scanned surface in a main scanning direction (Fig. 2, reference 21a); and
an imaging optical system configured to guide the deflected light flux to the scanned surface (Fig. 2, reference 331),
wherein a width of the light flux is larger than the width of a deflecting surface of the deflecting unit in a main scanning cross section when the light flux is incident on the deflecting surface ([0007], lines 1-4; also see Fig. 4a).
Motoyama et al. are silent about wherein a scanning speed of the light flux on the scanned surface is different between an on-axis image height and an outermost off-axis image height.
Hori et al. disclosed a deflecting unit (Fig. 1, reference 134) configured to deflect light from a light source (Fig. 1, reference 104), an imaging optical system configured to guide the deflected light (Fig. 1, reference 136), wherein a scanning speed of the light flux on the scanned surface is different between an on-axis image height and an outermost off-axis image height ([0035], lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hori et al. with those of Motoyama et al. by adjusting the scanning speed of the deflected light according to the position on the scanned surface in order to compensate for the difference in scanning angle and achieve a uniform exposure on the scanned surface as disclosed by Hori et al. in paragraph [0035].
The combination of Motoyama et al. and Hori et al. is silent about wherein a first region between the on-axis image height and the outermost off-axis image height at one side is longer than a second region between the on-axis image height and the outermost off-axis image height at the other side with respect to an optical axis of the imaging optical system on the scanned surface.
Kudo et al. disclosed a deflecting unit (Fig. 1, reference 6) configured to deflect light from a light source (Fig. 1, references 1a-d), an imaging optical system configured to guide the deflected light (Fig. 1, references 11a-f), wherein a first region between the on-axis image height and the outermost off-axis image height at one side is longer than a second region between the on-axis image height and the outermost off-axis image height at the other side with respect to an optical axis of the imaging optical system on the scanned surface (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kudo et al. with those of the combination of Motoyama et al. and Hori et al. by disposing the deflecting unit asymmetrically with respect to the scanned surface in order to improve the flexibility in the design as disclosed by Kudo et al. in paragraph [0049].
15. Regarding claim 4: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the scanning speed changes monotonically between the on-axis image height and the outermost off-axis image height (Hori et al. [0035], lines 9-10).
16. Regarding claim 5: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the scanning speed at the outermost off-axis image height is larger than the scanning speed at the on-axis image height (Hori et al. [0035], lines 9-10; in the outermost off-axis region, the incremental angle change corresponds to a larger linear distance thereby requiring a faster speed as commonly known in the art).
17. Regarding claim 6: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a traveling direction of the light flux when the light flux is incident on the deflecting surface is not parallel to the optical axis of the imaging optical system in the main scanning cross section (Motoyama et al. Fig. 2, the light flux Li incident of the deflecting surface 321 is not parallel to the optical axis of the imaging optical system Lo in the main scanning cross section).
18. Regarding claim 8: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an incident optical system configured to make the light flux from the light source be incident on the deflecting surface of the deflecting unit, wherein the incident optical system is arranged at the one side (Kudo et al. Fig. 1, references 3 and 4).
19. Regarding claim 10: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein each of an optical axis of the incident optical system and the optical axis of the imaging optical system is parallel to the main scanning cross section (Motoyama et al. Fig. 2, the light flux L incident on the incident optical system 316 is parallel to the on-axis light flux Lo leaving the optical system 331).
20. Regarding claim 12: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first region is a region at a side where the light source is arranged with respect to the optical axis (Kudo et al. Fig. 1, the light sources 1a-d are disposed in the first region (longer side) with respect to the optical axis).
21. Regarding claim 13: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a region through which light fluxes traveling toward the first region pass is longer than a region through which light fluxes traveling toward the second region pass on an optical element included in the imaging optical system (Kudo et al. see Fig. 1).
22. Regarding claim 14: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed an image forming apparatus (Motoyama et al. [0089], line 1; also see Fig. 1, reference 100) comprising: the apparatus of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1); a developing unit configured to develop, as a toner image, an electrostatic latent image formed on the scanned surface by the apparatus (Motoyama et al. [0090], line 6; also see Fig. 1, reference 24); a transferring unit configured to transfer the developed toner image onto a transferred material (Motoyama et al. [0090], lines 7-8; also see Fig. 1, reference 25); and a fixing unit configured to fix the transferred toner image on the transferred material (Motoyama et al. [0090], lines 8-9; also see Fig. 1, reference 27).
23. Regarding claim 17: The combination of Motoyama et al., Hori et al. and Kudo et al. disclosed an image forming apparatus comprising: the apparatus of claim 1; and a controller configured to convert a signal output from an external apparatus into image data to input the image data to the apparatus (Motoyama et al. [0178], lines 1-3 and [0104], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 6, reference 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 2-3, 7, 9, 11, 15-16 and 18-19 are 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, provided that the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
26. 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.
27. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at (571)272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
28. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights