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 11/07/2025 amended claim 1 and cancelled claims 2 and 3. Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claim 1.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 11/07/2025 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.
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, 4-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113376939 A).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a projection apparatus (Fig. 1-5), comprising: a casing (18), having an air inlet and an air outlet (Fig. 4); a light source module (14), disposed in the casing (18), and configured to provide an illumination beam; a light source heat dissipation module (20), disposed in the casing (18), and connected to the light source module (14); an optical engine module (1), disposed in the casing (18), located on a transmission path of the illumination beam, and configured to convert the illumination beam into an image beam, wherein the optical engine module (1) comprises a liquid crystal panel (11); an optical engine heat dissipation module (21), disposed in the casing (18), and connected to the liquid crystal panel (11), a fan (19), disposed in the casing (18), and located adjacent to the air outlet (Fig. 4), wherein the fan (19) comprises an axis, the light source heat dissipation module (20) and the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) are respectively overlapped with at least part of the fan (19; Fig. 4), an airflow enters the casing (18) from the air inlet, passes through the optical engine heat dissipation module (21), the light source heat dissipation module (20), and the fan in sequence, and flows out of the casing (18) from the air outlet; and a projection lens (16), connected to the casing (18) for projecting the image beam out of the casing (18).
Guo does not teach the light source module (14) and the fan (19) being not overlapped in the direction of the axis of the fan (19).
Rearranging the light source module (14) and the fan (19) such that the light source module (14) and the fan (19) are not overlapped in the direction of the axis of the fan (19) does not change the principle of operation in any way.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 4, Guo further teaches the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) comprises a base (base of 21) and a plurality of heat dissipation fins (21) connected to the base (base of 21; Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Guo further teaches lengths of the heat dissipation fins (21) are all equal (Fig. 2-5), and an extending direction of the heat dissipation fins (21) is perpendicular to at least a side of a frame of the liquid crystal panel (11; Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 6, Guo further teaches lengths of the heat dissipation fins (21) are all equal (Fig. 2-5), and the heat dissipation fins (21) are disposed radially on a frame of the liquid crystal panel (11) while taking the liquid crystal panel (11) as a center (Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 7, Guo further teaches lengths of the heat dissipation fins (21) are different (Fig. 3), and an extending direction of the heat dissipation fins (21) is perpendicular to at least a side of a frame of the liquid crystal panel (11; Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 8, Guo further teaches an area of the base (base of 21) is greater than an area of the liquid crystal panel (11; Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Guo further teaches the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) comprises a plurality of heat dissipation fins (21) and a plurality of bases (bases of 21), the liquid crystal panel (11) comprises a panel body (111, 112) and a plurality of metal blocks (3) disposed on two opposite sides of the panel body (111, 112), and the bases (bases of 21) are connected to the metal blocks (3).
Regarding claim 11, Guo further teaches the heat dissipation fins (21) are directly connected to the bases (bases of 21).
Regarding claim 13, Guo further teaches a thermal interface material (curable silica gel), disposed between the bases (bases of 21) and the metal blocks (3).
Regarding claim 14, Guo further teaches the light source heat dissipation module (20) comprises a base (base of 20) and a plurality of heat dissipation fins (20) connected to the base, and the light source module (14) is disposed on the base (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Guo further teaches the optical engine module (1) comprises a first sealing part (groove between 12 and 112 or edge of 1; Fig. 1), the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) comprises a second sealing part (3 and/or inner wall of 2), and the first sealing part and the second sealing part are sealed, so that the optical engine module (1) is connected to the optical engine heat dissipation module (21).
Regarding claim 16, Guo further teaches one of the first sealing part and the second sealing part is a groove (groove between 12 and 112), and the other one of the first sealing part and the second sealing part is a protrusion (3; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Guo further teaches a sealing ring (3), disposed between the first sealing part (groove between 12 and 112 or edge of 1) and the second sealing part (inner wall of 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Miyashita (US 20130114046 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Guo further teaches the liquid crystal panel (11) comprises a panel body (111, 112) and a FPC/circuit board (113), the panel body (111, 112) is disposed on the FPC/circuit board (113), the base (base of 21) of the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) is connected to the FPC/circuit board (113).
Guo does not teach a plurality of pads on the circuit board are exposed by the panel body, and the base of the optical engine heat dissipation module is connected to the pads.
Miyashita teaches a plurality of pads (at 402) on the circuit board (40i/401, 404, and 51) are exposed by the panel body (40; Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Guo and Miyashita which consequently results in the base of the optical engine heat dissipation module connected to the pads; because it is the circuit board of Miyashita allows connection between the FPC and the circuit of the LCD.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Hou (US 20160309125 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Guo further does not teach the optical engine heat dissipation module further comprises a plurality of heat pipes disposed on the bases, and the heat dissipation fins are directly connected to the heat pipes and connected to the bases through the heat pipes.
Hou teaches the optical engine heat dissipation module (129) further comprises a plurality of heat pipes (129b) disposed on the bases (126), and the heat dissipation fins (129a) are directly connected to the heat pipes (129b) and connected to the bases (126) through the heat pipes (129b).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Guo and Hou; because it allows greater flexibility in placement of the fins.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Rothschild (US 6657858 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Guo does not explicitly teach a buffer gasket, disposed between the optical engine module (1) and the optical engine heat dissipation module (21), wherein the optical engine module (1) comprises a first hole, the buffer gasket comprises a second hole, the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) comprises a third hole, and a locking member passes through the first hole, the second hole, and the third hole in sequence to fix the optical engine module (1) on the optical engine heat dissipation module (21).
Rothschild teaches having a buffer gasket (60), disposed between the heat source wall (16) and the heatsink (18), wherein the heat source wall (16) comprises a first hole, the buffer gasket comprises a second hole, the heatsink (18) comprises a third hole, and a locking member (56/57) passes through the first hole, the second hole, and the third hole in sequence to fix the heat source wall (16) on the heatsink (18; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Guo with Rothschild; because it allows enhancing thermal contact between the optical engine heat dissipation module (21) and the optical engine module (1).
Claim 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Xu (US 10809603 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Guo further teaches the casing (18) comprises a first side and a second side opposite to each other, and a third side connected to the first side and the second side, wherein the air inlet is disposed on the first side, the air outlet is disposed on the second side,
Guo does not explicitly teach the projection lens (16) is connected to the third side.
Xu teaches having the air inlet is disposed on the first side, the air outlet is disposed on the second side, and the projection lens (14) is connected to the third side (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Guo and Xu; because it allows reducing the depth of the projector.
Regarding claim 20, Guo further teaches the casing (18) comprises a first side and a second side opposite to each other, and a third side connected to the first side and the second side, the air outlet is disposed on the second side. Guo further teaches the projection lens (16) is connected to the side corresponding to the air inlet.
Guo does not teach the air inlet is disposed on the third side and the projection lens (16) connected to the third side and corresponds to the air inlet.
Xu teaches having the projection lens (14) connected to the third side (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Guo and Xu; because it allows reducing the depth of the projector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment/s of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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