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 .
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e.
it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP
§ 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the
disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single
paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal
phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be
avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in
deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the recitation “an end directly or indirectly coupled to the movable portion” is unclear, for this limitation does not provide objective boundaries for what qualifies as “indirectly coupled.” The term “indirectly coupled” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This limitation could encompass an infinite amount of interpretations and types of connections. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular drive beam satisfies the limitation of “an end directly or indirectly coupled to the movable portion”, and thus, the scope of the claim(s) is ambiguous. Examiner interprets “an end directly or indirectly coupled to the movable portion” as any end of each of the multiple drive beams for the prosecution on merits. The multiple drive beams and movable portion have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “indirectly coupled.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a movable device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochida JP 2021148992 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 1, Mochida discloses a movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) comprising:
a fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]);
a movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]);
multiple drive beams (first drive beams 120a and 120b; [0033]) to drive ([0051]) the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]), each of the multiple drive beams (first drive beams 120a and 120b; [0033]) having:
an end directly or indirectly coupled (end portions of first drive beams 120a, 120b connected to movable part 110 via connection portions 114a, 114b; [0043-44]; as seen in fig. 5) to the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]); and
another end coupled (end portions 114c, 114d of first drive beams 120a, 120b connected to fixing portion 130; [0043-44]) to the fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]), and
each of the multiple drive beams (first drive beams 120a and 120b; [0033]) including:
an upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5); and
a lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5) separated from (as seen in fig. 5) the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) in a normal direction (Y direction normal to X direction and Z direction as seen in fig. 5) of the fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]).
With respect to Claim 2, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, wherein the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) overlaps (along Y direction of second drive units 130a, 130b and detection units 140a and 140b; [0058]; fig. 5) the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5) in the normal direction (Y direction normal to X direction and Z direction as seen in fig. 5) of the fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]).
With respect to Claim 3, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, wherein the multiple drive beams (first drive beams 120a and 120b; [0033]) include:
multiple upper drive beams (stacked on top of second drive units 130a, 130b; fig. 5; [0058]) including a first number (first drive beam 120a has two upper drive beam portions, first drive beam 120b has three upper drive beam portions; fig. 5) of the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5); and
multiple lower drive beams (stacked below detection units 140a and 140b; fig. 5; [0058]) including a second number different from the first number (first drive beam 120a has three lower drive beam portions, first drive beam 120b has two lower drive beam portions; fig. 5) of the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5).
With respect to Claim 4, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, wherein the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) is coupled to the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5) with an adhesive (via silicon oxide layer 162; [0055]; fig. 6).
With respect to Claim 5, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, wherein the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) is driven by a first drive voltage (second drive units 130a and 130b move when a drive voltage is applied, drive voltage A; [0058], [0074]; figs. 14-18); and
the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5) is driven by a second drive voltage antiphase (figs. 14a, 18a) to the first drive voltage (conversely, detection units 140a and 140b detect voltage, drive voltage B; [0058], [0074]; figs. 14-18).
With respect to Claim 6, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, further comprising:
an elastic support portion (plurality of elastic beams 132a to 132f, support portion 113; [0043]) disposed between (fig. 5) the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]) and one of the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) OR the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5),
wherein the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]) is resonantly driven (first drive beams 120a and 120b increase swing/rotation angle of movable part 110; [0051]) by one of the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) OR the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5) via the elastic support portion (elastic vibration generated by repeated tilting motion of movable part, plurality of elastic beams 132a to 132f, support portion 113; [0016], [0043]).
With respect to Claim 7, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, wherein the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]) is separated (as seen in fig. 5) from one of the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) OR the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5) in the normal direction (Y direction normal to X direction and Z direction as seen in fig. 5) of the fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]).
With respect to Claim 8, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, further comprising: a wire bonding electrically connecting (via reflective surface 14 of reflective portion 112 formed of thin metal film or multilayer film containing aluminum, gold, silver, etc.; [0035]) the upper drive beam (upper drive beam portions stacked on second drive units 130a, 130b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114a; as seen in fig. 5) and the lower drive beam (lower drive beam portions stacked below detection units 140a and 140b of first drive beams 120a, 120b, parallel to connection portion 114b; as seen in fig. 5).
With respect to Claim 18, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1, wherein the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]) is in (fig. 5) the fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]), and
each of the multiple drive beams (first drive beams 120a and 120b; [0033]) is between the movable portion (movable part 110; [0033]) and the fixed frame (fixed part 130 has a rectangular frame; [0046]) in a direction orthogonal to the normal direction (X direction orthogonal to Y normal direction and Z direction as seen in fig. 5).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida JP 2021148992 A (see machine translation) in view of Zhou US 20230126293 A1.
With respect to Claim 9, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1.
Mochida does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): further comprising: a through-silicon via electrically connecting the upper drive beam and the lower drive beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches micro-electro-mechanical systems, micromirrors, and micromirror arrays ([0008]), wherein a micromirror array comprises a Through Silicon Via (TSV) wafer having electrical connections that extend between a first side and a second side of the TSV wafer ([0012]). Zhou further teaches an array of micromirrors being mounted to the TSV wafer such that the first and second portions of each comb drive are electrically connected to the electrical connections ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light deflection device of Mochida to include the technical features of a through-silicon via electrically connecting portions of comb drives, for the purpose of forming very large mirror arrays and achieving mirror arrays with high fill factor, as taught by Zhou ([0123-124]). Examiner notes that when the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida JP 2021148992 A (see machine translation) in view of another embodiment of Mochida.
With respect to Claim(s) 10-14, Mochida discloses the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim 1.
The first embodiment of Mochida does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): an image projection apparatus comprising: the movable device, a head-up display comprising: the movable device, a laser headlamp comprising: the movable device, a head-mounted display comprising: the movable device, an object recognition apparatus comprising: the movable device, a moving body comprising: the head-up display, a moving body comprising:
the laser headlamp, and a moving body comprising: the object recognition apparatus.
However, in another embodiment of Mochida, Mochida teaches a second embodiment as an example in which light deflection device 10 is applied to an image projection device ([0091]), wherein a head-up display device 500 is an example of an image projection device and an automobile 400 is equipped with a head-up display device 500 ([0091]). Mochida further teaches a fifth embodiment as an example in which light deflection device 10 is applied to a laser headlamp 50 of an automobile ([0116]), a sixth embodiment as an example in which optical deflection device 10 is applied to a head-mounted display 60 ([0121]), and a fourth embodiment as an example in which light deflection device 10 is applied to an object recognition device ([0107]), wherein an automobile equipped with a laser radar device is an example of an object recognition device ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light deflection device of Mochida to include the technical features of a movable device, an optical deflection device, an image
projection device, an optical writing device, an object recognition device, a mobile body, and
a head-mounted display ([0001]), for the purpose of shortening an adjustment processing time by enabling adjustment work without waiting for a complete convergence of a superimposed high-frequency sound that occurs with setting changes, as taught by Mochida ([0011]).
With respect to Claim(s) 15-17, Mochida (first embodiment) teaches the movable device (movable device 13 of light deflection device 10; [0017]) according to claim(s) 11, 12, and 14.
The first embodiment of Mochida does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a moving body comprising: the head-up display according to claim 11, a moving body comprising: the laser headlamp according to claim 12, and a moving body comprising: the object recognition apparatus according to claim 14.
However, in another embodiment of Mochida, Mochida teaches a second embodiment as an example in which light deflection device 10 is applied to an image projection device ([0091]), wherein a head-up display device 500 is an example of an image projection device and an automobile 400 is equipped with a head-up display device 500 ([0091]). Mochida further teaches a fifth embodiment as an example in which light deflection device 10 is applied to a laser headlamp 50 of an automobile ([0116]), a sixth embodiment as an example in which optical deflection device 10 is applied to a head-mounted display 60 ([0121]), and a fourth embodiment as an example in which light deflection device 10 is applied to an object recognition device ([0107]), wherein an automobile equipped with a laser radar device is an example of an object recognition device ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the light deflection device of Mochida to include the technical features of a movable device, an optical deflection device, an image
projection device, an optical writing device, an object recognition device, a mobile body, and
a head-mounted display ([0001]), for the purpose of shortening an adjustment processing time by enabling adjustment work without waiting for a complete convergence of a superimposed high-frequency sound that occurs with setting changes, as taught by Mochida ([0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yamada US 20180088320 A1 discloses an optical scanning device substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11 September 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights