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 .
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:
a first optical element (Claim 1, 3, 5)
a second optical element (Claim 1, 3, 5)
a control unit (Claim 9, 11)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3737090 A1.
Claim 1
EP 3737090 A1 discloses an optical scanning apparatus having a deflector (Fig. 11, Ref. 13; light deflector); a light source having at least a first light-emitting unit (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(g)) that emits a first light and a second light-emitting unit (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(b)) that emits a second light having optical characteristics different from that of the first light (See Abstract; plurality of laser beams of different color components); a first optical element (Fig. 1, Ref. 115) disposed so that the first light emitted from the first light-emitting unit (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(g)) is incident thereon and reflects the first light and causes it to be incident on the deflector (Fig. 11, Ref. 13); a second optical element (Fig. 11, Ref. 117) disposed so that the second light emitted from the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(b)) is incident thereon and reflects the second light (reflects towards Ref. 119) and causes it to be incident on the deflector (Fig. 11, Ref. 13); wherein the first optical element (Fig. 11, Ref. 115) has optical characteristics of reflecting the first light (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(b)) and transmitting the second light (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(b)), and wherein the second optical element (Fig. 11, Ref. 117) has optical characteristics of reflecting the second light (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(b)) and transmitting the first light (Fig. 11, Ref. 111(g))(See Translation Page 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
EP 3737090 A1 discloses the first light and the second light have different wavelengths as the optical characteristics (See Abstract; different color components), wherein the first optical element (Fig. 11, Ref. 115) is a first dichroic mirror that reflects the first light and transmits the second light (See Page 8), and wherein the second optical element (Fig. 11, Ref. 117) is a second dichroic mirror that reflects the second light and transmits the first light (See Page 8).
Claim 4
EP 3737090 A1 discloses the optical scanning apparatus according to wherein the difference in wavelength between the first light and the second light is 50 nm or more (See Page 5; different color laser beams of RGB have a 50 nm or more between the wavelengths).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3, 5-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3737090 A1.
Claim 3
EP 3737090 A1 discloses the claimed invention except for the first light and the second light have different wavelengths as the optical characteristics, wherein the first optical element is a first bandpass filter that reflects the first light and transmits the second light, and wherein the second optical element is a second bandpass filter that reflects the second light and transmits the first light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify EP 3737090 A1 with bandpass filters since it was well known in the art that using bandpass filters blocks unwanted wavelengths therefore reducing background noise. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 5
EP 3737090 A1 discloses the claimed invention except for the first light and the second light have different polarization directions as the optical characteristics, wherein the first optical element is a first reflective polarizer that reflects the first light and transmits the second light, and wherein the second optical element is a second reflective polarizer that reflects the second light and transmits the first light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify EP 3737090 A1 with polarizations beams since it was well known in the art that using different polarization directions for the first and second light in an optical scanner improves signal separation, reduces crosstalk, enables polarization-sensitive measurements, and allows precise control over optical characteristics through polarizing elements. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 6, 7
EP 3737090 A1 discloses the claimed invention except for the difference in polarization direction between the first light and the second light is approximately 90 degrees and the first light-emitting unit emits linearly polarized light as the first light, and wherein the second light-emitting unit emits linearly polarized light as the second light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify EP 3737090 A1 with the 90 degree polarization or linearly polarized light since it was well known in the art that using first light and second light with 90 degree polarization difference or linearly polarized light allows the scanner to separate, modulate, and detect two independent light paths efficiently, reducing crosstalk and enabling precise control over the optical signal. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 10
EP 3737090 A1 discloses the optical scanning apparatus according to wherein the difference in wavelength between the first light and the second light is 50 nm or more (See Page 5; different color laser beams of RGB have a 50 nm or more between the wavelengths).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a first 1/4 wavelength plate disposed between the first reflective polarizer and the deflector; and a second 1/4 wavelength plate disposed between the second reflective polarizer and the deflector; wherein the first linearly polarized light reflected by the first reflective polarizer transmits through the first 1/4 wavelength plate and is converted into circularly polarized light, is incident on and reflected by the deflector, is then converted into the second linearly polarized light by entering and transmitting through the second 1/4 wavelength plate, and is incident on and transmitted through the second reflective polarizer, and wherein the first linearly polarized light reflected by the second reflective polarizer transmits through the second 1/4 wavelength plate and is converted into circularly polarized light, is incident on and reflected by the deflector, is then converted into the second linearly polarized light by entering and transmitting through the first 1/4 wavelength plate, and is incident on and transmitted through the first reflective polarizer, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 8. Claim 11 are allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowed claim 8.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a light receiving unit that detects the reflected light caused by the light irradiated from the optical scanning apparatus and generates a light receiving signal corresponding to the intensity of the reflected light; and a control unit that controls the operation of the optical scanning apparatus and generates point group information based on the light receiving signal, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights