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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The foreign priority document was electronically retrieved on 7 May 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “837a” and “837b” (Fig. 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0271920 to Hirata et al. (hereafter Hirata), in view of US 2004/0184124 to Ikegame et al. (hereafter Ikegame).
Regarding claim 1, Hirata discloses a mirror member (see at least the abstract and Fig. 17), comprising a main frame, a mirror and a plurality of supports parts that radially connect an inner edge of the main frame and the mirror (see at least Figs. 15 and 17, where a main frame is inherent since the mirror cannot operate without a frame), wherein each of the support parts includes: a first support rib connected to the mirror and extending in a radial direction from a rotation center of the mirror to the inner edge (see at least Fig. 17, part 2-1 and similar); a second support rib connected to the first support rib and extending in a first circumferential direction about the rotation center (see at least Fig. 17, parts 5-1-a and 5-1-b and similar); a third support rib connected to the second support rib and extending in a second circumferential direction, opposite to the first circumferential direction, on an outer diameter side of the rotation center with respect to the second support rib (see at least Fig. 17, parts 5-1-c and 5-1-d and similar); and a fourth support rib connected to the third support rib and extending in the first circumferential direction outward of the rotation center with respect to the third support rib (see at least Fig. 17, parts 5-1-e and 5-1-f and similar).
Hirata does not specifically disclose a fifth support rib extending in the radial direction from the fourth support rib and connecting to both the fourth support rib and the inner edge.
However, Ikegame teaches a mirror member comprising a main frame a mirror, and a plurality of support parts that radially connect an inner edge of the main frame and the mirror, wherein each of the support parts includes a final outer part extending in a radial direction and connecting to an inner edge of the main frame (see at least Fig. 14a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata to include the teachings of Ikegame so that the support parts include a fifth support rib extending in the radial direction from the fourth support rib and connecting to both the fourth support rib and the inner edge for the purpose of providing additional rotation freedom about the radial axis of the fifth support rib.
Regarding claim 2, Hirata as modified by Ikegame discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hirata also discloses that the first support rib is positioned in the second circumferential direction relative to the fifth support rib (see at least Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 5, Hirata as modified by Ikegame discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hirata also discloses that the third support rib is formed longer than the second support rib (see at least Fig. 17, where the third support rib is longer than the second support rib because it covers the same angle range while being further from the center).
Regarding claim 7, Hirata as modified by Ikegame discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hirata as modified by Ikegame does not specifically disclose that the fifth support rib is formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib.
The length of a support rib is considered a result effective variable because it is understood that the length will affect the flexibility of a support rib.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the fifth support rib being formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib include increasing the flexibility of the fifth support rib to optimize the steering of the mirror member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata as modified by Ikegame so that the fifth support rib is formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the fifth support rib to optimize the steering of the mirror member.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0271920 to Hirata et al. (hereafter Hirata), in view of US 2004/0184124 to Ikegame et al. (hereafter Ikegame) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2024/219157 to Aoshima, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation (hereafter Aoshima).
Regarding claim 3, Hirata as modified by Ikegame discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hirata as modified by Ikegame does not specifically disclose that the second support rib and the third support rib are connected via a first bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the second support rib and the third support rib, and the third support rib and the fourth support rib are connected via a second bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the third support rib and the fourth support rib.
However, Aoshima teaches a mirror member comprising a main frame, a mirror, and a plurality of support parts that radially connect an inner edge of the main frame and the mirror (see at least Fig. 4 and the abstract), wherein support ribs are connected via vent-back portions in an arc shape which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the support ribs (see at least Figs. 4 and 10 and paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata as modified by Ikegame to include the teachings of Aoshima so that the second support rib and the third support rib are connected via a first bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the second support rib and the third support rib, and the third support rib and the fourth support rib are connected via a second bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the third support rib and the fourth support rib for the purpose of optimizing the distribution of stress acting on the support ribs (see at least paragraph [0052] of Aoshima).
Regarding claim 4, Hirata as modified by Ikegame and Aoshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Aoshima also teaches that the first bent-back portion bulges toward the rotation center relative to the inner edge, and the second bent-back portion bulges toward an inner edge side relative to the rotation center (see at least Figs. 4 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata as modified by Ikegame and Aoshima to include the further teachings of Aoshima so that the first bent-back portion bulges toward the rotation center relative to the inner edge, and the second bent-back portion bulges toward an inner edge side relative to the rotation center for the purpose of optimizing the stress distribution (see at least paragraph [0052] of Aoshima).
Regarding claim 6, Hirata as modified by Ikegame discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hirata as modified by Ikegame does not specifically disclose that the second support rib extends from a first support rib side toward a third support rib side while tapering toward the rotation center side.
However, Aoshima teaches a mirror member comprising a main frame, a mirror, and a plurality of support parts that radially connect an inner edge of the main frame and the mirror (see at least Fig. 4 and the abstract), wherein a second support rib extends from a first support rib side toward a third support rib side while tapering toward the rotation center side (see at least Figs. 4 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata as modified by Ikegame to include the teachings of Aoshima so that the second support rib extends from a first support rib side toward a third support rib side while tapering toward the rotation center side for the purpose of optimizing the distribution of stress acting on the support ribs (see at least paragraph [0052] of Aoshima).
Regarding claim 8, Hirata as modified by Ikegame discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Hirata also discloses that the third support rib is formed longer than the second support rib (see at least Fig. 17, where the third support rib is longer than the second support rib because it covers the same angle range while being further from the center).
Hirata as modified by Ikegame does not specifically disclose that the second support rib and the third support rib are connected via a first bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the second support rib and the third support rib, the third support rib and the fourth support rib are connected via a second bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the third support rib and the fourth support rib, the first bent-back portion bulges toward the rotation center relative to the inner edge, the second bent-back portion bulges toward an inner edge side relative to the rotation center, the second support rib extends from a first support rib side toward a third support rib side while tapering toward the rotation center side, and the fifth support rib is formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib.
However, Aoshima teaches a mirror member comprising a main frame, a mirror, and a plurality of support parts that radially connect an inner edge of the main frame and the mirror (see at least Fig. 4 and the abstract), wherein support ribs are connected via vent-back portions in an arc shape which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the support ribs (see at least Figs. 4 and 10 and paragraph [0052]), the first bent-back portion bulges toward the rotation center relative to the inner edge, and the second bent-back portion bulges toward an inner edge side relative to the rotation center (see at least Figs. 4 and 10), and a second support rib extends from a first support rib side toward a third support rib side while tapering toward the rotation center side (see at least Figs. 4 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata as modified by Ikegame to include the teachings of Aoshima so that the second support rib and the third support rib are connected via a first bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the second support rib and the third support rib, the third support rib and the fourth support rib are connected via a second bent- back portion in an arc shape, which is wider than a distance between outer edges of the third support rib and the fourth support rib, the first bent-back portion bulges toward the rotation center relative to the inner edge, the second bent-back portion bulges toward an inner edge side relative to the rotation center, and the second support rib extends from a first support rib side toward a third support rib side while tapering toward the rotation center side for the purpose of optimizing the distribution of stress acting on the support ribs (see at least paragraph [0052] of Aoshima).
Hirata as modified by Ikegame and Aoshima does not specifically disclose that the fifth support rib is formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib.
The length of a support rib is considered a result effective variable because it is understood that the length will affect the flexibility of a support rib.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the fifth support rib being formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib include increasing the flexibility of the fifth support rib to optimize the steering of the mirror member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror member of Hirata as modified by Ikegame and Aoshima so that the fifth support rib is formed longer than a distance from the mirror to the outer edge of the fourth support rib for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the fifth support rib to optimize the steering of the mirror member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0033280 to Mizoguchi et al. discloses a mirror member comprising a main frame, a mirror, and a plurality of support parts (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
