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 .
Status
The filing on 01/27/2026 amended claims 1, 4 and 16. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa ‘317 (US 20180088317 A1) in view of Yamagishi (US 20200089092 A1) and in further view of Yoshikawa “314 (US 20190146314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa ‘317 teaches a laser reflection unit for a laser phosphor projector (100), comprising a housing (11) and a wheel (13) rotatably drivably received in the housing (11), the wheel (13) having a top side provided with a phosphor layer (13a) for converting an incident laser light beam into a reflected light beam, the wheel (13) further having a bottom side opposite to the top side, the bottom side being provided with cooling fins (13b) inducing an air flow flowing in a radial outward direction (Fig. 8A and 8B; [0102], [0108]), wherein the cooling fins (13b) are provided at a radial outward annular portion from a center axis of the wheel (13; Fig. 8A and 8B), the laser reflection unit further comprising a heat exchanger (21) received in the housing (11; Fig. 5 and 10) for cooling the air flow flowing from the wheel (13), the heat exchanger (21) extending along a mainly circumferential contour coaxial with the center axis of the wheel (13; Fig. 4A, 4B, 5 and 10), the heat exchanger (21) further including heat absorber fins (21a); wherein an inner surface of the housing (11) is shaped for guiding the air flow from the cooling fins in the radial outward direction axially downwardly into and through the absorber fins (21a; Fig. 5 and 10); wherein the inner surface of the housing (11) includes curved corner sections (11e) that are configured in a way to provide the air flow a circular air path, in a cross sectional view of the laser reflection unit.
Yoshikawa ‘317 does not explicitly teach the cooling fins are directly placed underneath the phosphor layer.
Yamagishi teaches the cooling fins are directly placed underneath the phosphor layer (Fig. 4-5). On the other hand, Yoshikawa ‘314 teaches the air flow being guided through the bottom side of the phosphor wheel (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yoshikawa ‘317 with Yamagishi and Yoshikawa ‘314; because improved air flow on the bottom surface of the phosphor wheel.
Neither Yoshikawa ‘317, Yamagishi nor Yoshikawa ‘314 teaches the housing chamber having a curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber.
Having a curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber does not necessarily affect the air flow within the housing chamber. A small radius of curvature has no affect on the air flow, but the large radius of curvature would have an affect on the air flow.
Lacking criticality to the functionality of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention; because it is a matter of design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that change in shape that does not affect the functionality of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the housing inner surface defines a composed chamber structure having a radial center portion receiving a central portion of the wheel (13), and a radial outer annular portion receiving the heat exchanger (21).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the radial outer annular portion of the chamber has a mainly toroidal shape (Fig. 2, 3, 5, 6A, 6B, 10, 11, 12A, 12B).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the housing inner surface defines a ceiling (11a), a radial outer side wall (11b), and a floor (11d) of the radial outer annular chamber portion to form the outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber (Fig. 2, 3, 5, 6A, 6B, 10, 11, 12A, 12B).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the housing inner surface defines a smooth wall contour at a radial outward portion of the housing (11; Fig. 6A and 6B).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the housing inner surface has a central inwardly depressed portion (11e) defining a raised floor (11d) of the radial center chamber portion (Fig. 5 and 10).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the wheel (13) is located at an upper part of the radial center chamber portion such that the cooling fins (13b) extend into the radial outer annular chamber portion (Fig. 5 and 10).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the housing inner surface and the cooling fins (13b) are arranged for generating an air flow circulating in a cross sectional view of the radial outer annular chamber portion (Fig. 5, 8A, 8B, and 10).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the wheel (13) is the only air flow inducing element (Fig. 10-11; [0133]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the heat exchanger (21) includes a tubing (24) provided with a fluid input port and a fluid output port ([0078]), the heat exchanger (21) further including the heat absorber fins (21a) attached to the tubing (24) and extending in a mainly transverse direction to a local tubing (24) body axis (Fig. 4A, 4B).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the housing (11) is mainly coaxial with the wheel (13; Fig. 2, 5, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the unit includes a single fan only, for inducing the air flow, the single fan being formed by the wheel (13) rotatably drivably received in the housing (11; Fig. 10-11; [0133]).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the unit includes a single movable unit only formed by the wheel (13) rotatably drivably received in the housing (11; Fig. 10-11; [0133]).
Claims 5, 8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa ‘317 (US 20180088317 A1) in view of Yamagishi (US 20200089092 A1) and Yoshikawa “314 (US 20190146314 A1) and in further view of Kitade (US 20190313065 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 8, 17 and 19, Yoshikawa ‘317 further teaches the curved corner sections are defined as curved edge sections (Fig. 5, 6A, 6B) between the ceiling (11a) and the radial outer side wall (11b) and guiding the air flow from the heat exchanger (21) towards the wheel (13), but does not teach the curved corner sections between the floor (11d) and the radial outer side wall (11b) or the curved corner sections run from the radial outer annular chamber portion floor (11d) via a curved edge section towards the radial center chamber portion (11e).
Kitade teaches having curved corner sections (11c) between the floor and the radial outer side wall or the curved corner sections run from the radial outer annular chamber portion floor via a curved edge section towards the radial center chamber portion (Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yoshikawa ‘317, Yamagishi and Yoshikawa ‘314 with Kitade; because it improves airflow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant/s argue,
Claim 1 recites, at least in part, that the inner surface of the housing chamber having
curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber that is configured in a way to provide the air flow a circular air path, in a cross sectional view of the laser reflection unit.
None of Yoshikawa '317, Yamagishi, Yoshikawa '314, and Kitade, taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the same combination of features as recited in claim 1.
While it is suggested on pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action that Yoshikawa '317 teaches curved corner sections referencing the updraft guide l1e, Applicant respectfully disagrees and further submits that Yoshikawa '317 teaches a different structure than recited in claim 1. For example, as shown in the annotated FIG. 1 below, the features recited in claim 1 are at least directed to an inner surface of the housing being shaped for guiding the air flow from the cooling fins in the radial outward direction axially downwardly into and through the absorber fins, in which the inner surface of the housing chamber includes curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber that is configured in a way to provide the air flow a circular air path, in a cross sectional view of the laser reflection unit. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a pressurization fan is not required, at least due in part to the structure of the inner surface having the curved corner sections along the outer peripheral of the housing chamber, which causes the pattern of the air flow to be more circular and offers minimum air resistance, e.g., a specific combination of features as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Yoshikawa '317 teaches lid portion 1la described as a "substantially quadrangular plate-shaped member" in paragraphs [0087] and outer cylindrical portion 1lb described as a "substantially circular cylindrical member that forms the side surface of casing unit 11" in paragraphs [0092]. Where the quadrangular lid portion 11 a meets the circular cylindrical outer portion 11 b, "corners" are formed at the four points of the cross section where the straight edges of the quadrangular lid intersect with the curved surface of the cylinder. There is no indication in Yoshikawa '317 that the inner surface of the housing chamber having curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber that is configured in a way to provide the air flow a circular air path, in a cross sectional view of the laser reflection unit, as recited in claim 1. (Remarks; 7-8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged above, neither Yoshikawa ‘317, Yamagishi nor Yoshikawa ‘314 teaches the housing chamber having a curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber. Having a curved corner sections on an outer peripheral portion of the housing chamber does not necessarily affect the air flow within the housing chamber. A small/insignificant radius of curvature has no effect on the air flow, but the large or large enough radius of curvature would have an effect on the air flow. The claim does not limit the curve portion to a structure that affects the functionality of the housing chamber. Lacking criticality to the functionality of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention; because it is a matter of design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that change in shape that does not affect the functionality of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights