Ex Parte UEDA

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2017

13152901 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/152,901 06/03/2011 Shinji UEDA CANO-165 8 7871 37013 7590 11/02/2017 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP 20609 Gordon Park Square Suite 150 Ashburn, VA 20147 EXAMINER CHOU, JIMMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mail@rkmllp.com EOfficeAction@rkmllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHINJI UEDA Appeal 2016-003478 Application 13/152,901 Technology Center 3700 Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 2009/0289042 Al, pub. Nov. 26, 2009) and Hayashida (US 4,558,265, iss. Dec. 10, 1985). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-003478 Application 13/152,901 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a mirror angular-positioning apparatus. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for angular positioning of a mirror, the apparatus comprising: a mirror; a motor, including a rotatable shaft, configured to rotate the mirror via the rotatable shaft; a detector configured to detect a rotational angle of the mirror around a designed central axis of the rotatable shaft; and a controller configured to: supply electric current to the motor based on an output of the detector so that the rotational angle of the mirror reaches a target angle; estimate, based on a model representing a relation between a value of electric current to be supplied to the motor and an angle of inclination of the mirror, the angle of inclination of the mirror in a case where the electric current is supplied to the motor, wherein the angle of inclination of the mirror is an angle at which the mirror inclines with respect to the designed central axis; and if the estimated angle of inclination exceeds a predetermined tolerance, adjust supply of electric current to the motor so that the angle of inclination of the mirror falls within the predetermined tolerance. OPINION Appellant argues that the claims are allowable at least because the combination of Ueda and Hayashida does not teach or suggest “a controller that estimates, based on a model representing a relation between a value of electric current to be supplied to the motor and an angle of inclination of the mirror, the angle of inclination of the mirror” as required 2 Appeal 2016-003478 Application 13/152,901 by all of the independent claims, including claim 1. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds that Ueda teaches the majority of the features of claim 1, including “a controller . . . configured to” “estimate the angle of rotation of the first mirror[], based on ‘a model.’” Final Act. 3. The Examiner construes the term “estimate” to “refer[] to an approximate calculation.” Ans. 18. The Examiner cites Ueda’s calculation of the tilt angle as an estimate based on a model, but also finds that the model does not “represent[] a relation between a value of electric current to be supplied to the motor and an angle of inclination of the mirror” as specified by the claims. Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 18—19. The Examiner then finds that Hayashida teaches a model representing a relationship between electric current and the position of the motor shaft. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that the combined references do not “teach [comparing] an angle of inclination of [the] mirror . . . with electric current supply to [the] motor.” Id. However, the Examiner determines that “it would only require routine skill in the art... to incorporate a current parameter into the model of Ueda to efficiently control the movement of the mirror with respect to the calculated value.” Id. Ueda is directed to a light beam scanning (galvano) apparatus, similar to the claimed invention. Ueda H 2, 4. “A galvano apparatus has a mirror mounted on the rotation axis of a motor and causes the mirror to reflect laser light toward a target position while controlling the rotation angle of the mirror.” Id. 14. The laser light can be positioned at high speed, which can cause tilt/vibration of the mirror as the motor is abruptly started and stopped. Id. 1 5. Ueda discloses a number of different embodiments of detector 3 Appeal 2016-003478 Application 13/152,901 systems, with a detector and processor configured to compute the amount of tilt of the mirror based on measurements from the detector. See generally id. 28—68 (describing four embodiments of light scanning apparatus, each with a different detector system). For example, the first embodiment deflects light off the top of the mirror and calculates the mirror’s tilt based off of the measured deflection of the light, taking into account a number of other measurements, such as the distance from the top of the mirror to base and the angular (rotational) position of the mirror. Id. H 28-41, Figs. 2-4. Once the initial amount of tilt has been calculated, the system of Ueda “waits until [the tilt values] fall within the allowable values” before performing any necessary operation (i.e., drilling, cutting, etc.) at the target location and before rotating the mirror to the next target location. Id. 142; see also id. 1144, 53, 60. In other words, Ueda’s system waits to perform further action while the mirror’s vibrations attenuate so that the desired accuracy can be ensured. Hayashida is directed to speed and position control of an electric motor. Hayashida col. 1:5—8. In particular, Hayashida teaches a method of controlling motor speed to reach a particular angular target location that takes into account a number of different factors of the electric motor, such as inertia, torque, load, acceleration, deceleration, and maximum speed. Id. at col. 1:9-10, 3:59-64, 4:19-21, 5:13-15, 42^13, 58-60. Appellant argues that neither these references nor “the examiner . . . provide any objective teaching for estimating the tilt angle based on the current to be supplied to the motor.” Appeal Br. 6. In response, the Examiner repeats some of the previous findings, emphasizing that “it is inherent that electric current [is] supplied] to the motor” and that tilt is a 4 Appeal 2016-003478 Application 13/152,901 result of motor movement. Ans. 20—21. However, this still does not provide a link for “estimating the tilt angle based on the current to be supplied to the motor.” As further noted by Appellant, “the examiner fails to provide any nexus between ‘to efficiently control the movement of the mirror’ with estimating the tilt angle of the mirror.” Appeal Br. 6. As noted above, Ueda teaches a system that moves to a target location and then waits for the vibration to attenuate. Hayashida on the other hand is only concerned with moving the shaft of the motor to the target location. The Examiner has not identified any teachings linking efficient control of the mirror and estimating tilt angle of the mirror. The only teachings that make this link appear to be the teachings of Appellant’s Specification. For this reason we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8 is reversed. REVERSED 5