DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on December 12, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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(s) 1, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0121479 A1), and further in view of Naito (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0067955 A1).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an image reading device (see O’connor, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 39040 and etc., disclose the image capturing system) comprising:
a visible light source to irradiate a document with a visible light beam (see O’connor, i.e. fig. 1, para. 40, and etc., disclose that “…Source 13 can emit electromagnetic radiation including but not limited to visible light or near-infrared light.”);
an infrared light source to irradiate the document with an infrared light beam (see O’connor, i.e. fig. 1, para. 40, and etc., disclose that “…Source 13 can emit electromagnetic radiation including but not limited to s or near-infrared light.”); and
multiple mirrors disposed in optical paths of the visible light beam and the infrared light beam from the document to an imaging device (see O’Connor, i.e. in para. 87 and etc., disclose that “…In another embodiment of the present invention, multiple mirrors and sensors can be utilized, e.g., at least one mirror per foot”),
wherein the multiple mirrors include at least a mirror having a reflectance of 93% or more, at a reflection angle of 45°, to a light beam having a wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less (see O’Connor, i.e. in para. 40 and etc., disclose that “[0040] Image capture system 11 can comprise image capture hardware 12, which may include one or more optical sources 13 and one or more optical sensors 14. Source 13 can emit electromagnetic radiation including but not limited to visible light or near-infrared light. For example, source 13 may emit light of wavelengths between 350 nm and 1 .mu.m, inclusive. Alternatively, source 13 may emit light of wavelengths between 380 nm and 750 nm, 750 nm and 1 .mu.m, or 850 nm and 1550 nm, inclusive, or any other ranges within the enumerated values [or as claimed “… a light beam having a wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less”]. Optical source 13 may be a light-emitting diode (LED), laser, cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL), xenon lamp, other type of lamp, or any other type of optical source.”; further in para. 88, discloses that “[0088] Angle 58 in the embodiment of FIG. 7, e.g., an angle of mirror 53 from horizontal, may be between 44 degrees and 46 degrees, inclusive. However, angle 58 may also be less than 45 degrees, including without limitation between 30 degrees and 35 degrees, 35 degrees and 40 degrees, or 40 and 45 degrees, inclusive, or any integer or non-integer number of degrees within or between the enumerated ranges…”).
The teachings of O’Connor merely lacks in explicitly disclose the aspect relating to “wherein the multiple mirrors include at least a mirror having a reflectance of 93% or more, at a reflection angle of 45°…”.
However, Naito discloses an analogous invention relates to scanning optical apparatus and image forming apparatus. More specifically, in Naito, i.e. in in fig. 2, para. 12, 24, 32, 150, 214 and etc., disclose that “… [0024] In this case, the mirror at the maximum incident angle of the on-axis light beam may be at an incident angle of 45 degrees or more in the sub-scanning section.”, “[0214] In this case, in this embodiment, the first mirrors 16a and 16b having the common thin-film characteristic are 95% in the reflectance of the on-axis light beam whose incident angle is 7.degree.. Further, the reflective films of the first mirrors 16a and 16b are optimized taking the angle of the incident light beam and the polarization direction into consideration so that the reflectance of the off-axis light beam whose incident angle is 33.degree. is also 95%...”.
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 O’Connor to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Naito, with the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to image reading and processing arts. Further, 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 O’Connor by the teachings of Naito, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Naito, thereby “… providing a scanning optical apparatus which is capable of forming a high quality image while manufacture of an imaging optical system is facilitated, a length of the apparatus in a direction of height is reduced, and unevenness of illuminance distribution (light amount distribution) on a surface to be scanned is reduced, and an image forming apparatus using the scanning optical apparatus” (see Naito, i.e. para. 21 and etc.).
With regard to claim 4, the claim is drawn to the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the mirror having the reflectance of 93% or more includes a surface reflection mirror made of a metal film material of silver (see Naito, i.e. in para. 214 and etc., disclose that ““[0214] In this case, in this embodiment, the first mirrors 16a and 16b having the common thin-film characteristic are 95% in the reflectance of the on-axis light beam whose incident angle is 7.degree.. Further, the reflective films of the first mirrors 16a and 16b are optimized taking the angle of the incident light beam and the polarization direction into consideration so that the reflectance of the off-axis light beam whose incident angle is 33.degree. is also 95%...”; further in O’Connor, i.e. in para. 104, 113 and etc., disclose that “[0104] In one embodiment of the present invention, the optical distance between central mirrors 113, lens 112, and sensor 111 can be secured. Central mirrors 113, lens 112, and sensor 111 can, for example, be secured to a shared vertical support or supports. Such a shared vertical support can be outside of the field of view of sensor 111, e.g., can be secured to sides of central mirrors 113, lens 112, and sensor 111 that are not in any ray paths between outer mirrors 114 and inner mirrors 113. In the view of FIG. 10, this positioning could be in front of or behind mirrors 113, e.g., as opposed to on the right or left of mirrors 113. Vertical supports can be plastic, wood, metal, or any other supporting material or combination thereof. Central mirrors 113, lens 112, and sensor 111 can further be incorporated into an integrated unit, or otherwise secured relative to one another…”).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the image reading device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an imaging device having a light receiving surface to receive the light beam (see O’Connor, i.e. in fig. 4, disclose the sensor 22);
a lens to image an image of the document at the light receiving surface of the imaging device (see O’Connor, i.e. in fig. 4, disclose the lens 25); and
a frame movable along a surface of the document, wherein the visible light source, the infrared light source, the multiple mirrors, the imaging device, and the lens are disposed on the frame (see O’Connor, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 61 and etc., disclose that “[0061] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a scanning image capture system of one embodiment of the present invention. Scanning element 20 may be located directly below sheet 10 and can be scanned across sheet 10 by mechanical components including without limitation a motor, e.g., a stepper motor; belt; stabilizer bar; or other actuating or stabilization elements. A scanning element 20 may carry a source 21 and a sensor 22. Scanning element 20 may also carry mirrors, lenses, or other optical hardware. For example, in the embodiment of FIG. 4, mirrors 23 or other optical elements may be utilized to direct light scattered by tissue in contact with sheet 10 toward sensor 22. A lens or lenses 25 can focus light onto the sensor 22.”).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to an image forming apparatus comprising: the image reading device according to claim 1 to read an image on the document; and an image forming device to form the image, read by the image reading device, on a sheet (see O’Connor, i.e. in para. 61, discloses that “[0061] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a scanning image capture system of one embodiment of the present invention. Scanning element 20 may be located directly below sheet 10 and can be scanned across sheet 10 by mechanical components including without limitation a motor, e.g., a stepper motor; belt; stabilizer bar; or other actuating or stabilization elements. A scanning element 20 may carry a source 21 and a sensor 22. Scanning element 20 may also carry mirrors, lenses, or other optical hardware. For example, in the embodiment of FIG. 4, mirrors 23 or other optical elements may be utilized to direct light scattered by tissue in contact with sheet 10 toward sensor 22. A lens or lenses 25 can focus light onto the sensor 22”; and also see Naito, i.e. in para. 4, and etc., disclose teachings of scanners and printer).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, and further in view of Morikawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0118358 A1).
With regard to claim 14, the claim is drawn to an image reading device (see O’connor, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 39040 and etc., disclose the image capturing system) comprising:
a visible light source to irradiate a document with visible light beam (see O’connor, i.e. fig. 1, para. 40, and etc., disclose that “…Source 13 can emit electromagnetic radiation including but not limited to visible light or near-infrared light.”);
an infrared light source to irradiate the document with an infrared light beam (see O’connor, i.e. fig. 1, para. 40, and etc., disclose that “…Source 13 can emit electromagnetic radiation including but not limited to s or near-infrared light.”); and
multiple mirrors disposed in optical paths of the visible light beam and the infrared light beam from the document to an imaging device (see O’Connor, i.e. in para. 87 and etc., disclose that “…In another embodiment of the present invention, multiple mirrors and sensors can be utilized, e.g., at least one mirror per foot”),
wherein the multiple mirrors include at least a surface reflection mirror made of a metal film material of silver (see the teachings of Morikawa supplemented below).
The teachings of O’Connor merely lacks in explicitly disclose the aspect relating to “wherein the multiple mirrors include at least a surface reflection mirror made of a metal film material of silver”.
However, Morikawa discloses an analogous invention relates to an image reading apparatus used together with an image forming apparatus and an image reading apparatus used singly. More specifically, in Morikawa, i.e. in para. 81, 167 and etc., disclose that “[0081] In this embodiment, a wide-angle imaging optical system is employed. For this reason, the change in the spectral characteristic depending on the image height (angle of view) is larger in this embodiment than in a reduction optical system which scans an original surface using a scanning unit with a fixed light source and reflecting mirrors…”, and “[0167] The spectral characteristics of the reflecting mirror and the imaging mirror will be described. In general, a mirror is formed by vapor-depositing a thin film of a metal such as aluminum, silver, chromium, or copper on a surface of glass, plastic, or resin. Hence, the spectral characteristic of the mirror changes depending on the type of the vapor-deposited metal…”.
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 O’Connor to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Morikawa, with the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to image reading and processing arts. Further, 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 O’Connor by the teachings of Morikawa, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Morikawa, thereby “… to reduce unevenness in the main-scanning read luminance of a chromatic color and degradation in image quality in an image reading apparatus having color sensors and a monochrome sensor” (see Morikawa, i.e. para. 16 and etc.).
With regard to claim 15, the claim is drawn to an image forming apparatus comprising:
the image reading device according to claim 14 to read an image on the document (see O’Connor, i.e. in fig. 1, the image capture hardware 12); and an image forming device to form the image, read by the image reading device, on a sheet (see Morikawa, i.e. in fig. 3, para. 65, disclose the image forming apparatus 610, and “… An image forming apparatus 610 forms an image on a paper sheet based on image data output from the image reading apparatus. The image forming apparatus 610 may serve as the image forming unit of a copying machine. The image forming apparatus 610 is an example of an image forming unit which receives an electrical signal representing an original image from the image reading apparatus and forms an image. The image forming unit can employ any scheme such as electrophotography or inkjet.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claims 2-3, 5 and 8-13, claims 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 2, the closest prior arts of record, O’Connor, Naito and Morikawa, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the mirror having the reflectance of 93% or more has a reflectance uniformity of 96% or more, at the reflection angle of 45°, to a light beam having the wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less, the reflectance uniformity being defined by a following expression, (minimum reflectance / maximum reflectance) × 100%”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 3, the closest prior arts of record, O’Connor, Naito and Morikawa, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the mirror having the reflectance of 93% or more, at the reflection angles of 45°, to the light beam having the wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less has a first reflectance characteristic, and the mirror having the reflectance of 93% or more, at the reflection angles of 5°, to the light beam having the wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less has a second reflectance characteristic equivalent to the first reflectance characteristic”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 5, the closest prior arts of record, O’Connor, Naito and Morikawa, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the mirror having the reflectance of 93% or more has the smallest mirror area among a mirror area of each of the multiple mirrors”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claim 8, the closest prior arts of record, O’Connor, Naito and Morikawa, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… wherein the reflectance uniformity is defined by a following expression, (minimum reflectance / maximum reflectance) × 100%.”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
With regard to claims 10-13, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 8, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
With regard to claim 9, the closest prior arts of record, O’Connor, Naito and Morikawa, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the image reading device according to claim 1, wherein the mirror having the reflectance uniformity of 96% or more, at the reflection angles of 45°, to the light beam having the wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less has a first reflectance characteristic, and the mirror having the reflectance uniformity of 96% or more, at the reflection angles of 5°, to the light beam having the wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 900 nm or less has a second reflectance characteristic equivalent to the first reflectance characteristic”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art(s) of record.
Therefore, claims 2-3, 5 and 8-13 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2022/0091493 A1) disclose an invention relates to light source device and projection-type display apparatus; specifically, in para. 24-25 and etc., disclose that “the second blue laser light whose polarization is controlled by second retardation plate 26 enters blue-reflecting dichroic mirror 31. Further, P-polarized green laser light emitted from green laser light source 29 enters blue-reflecting dichroic mirror 31. Blue-reflecting dichroic mirror 31 has the following characteristics. When disposed such that the incident angles are 45 degrees, blue-reflecting dichroic mirror 31 allows the green laser light to pass through with a transmittance of 94% or more and reflects the blue laser light with a reflectance of 96% or more. The half-value wavelength at which the transmittance is 50% is 490 nm for P-polarized light”; however, lack in explicitly disclosing the infrared light source.
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights