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 10/28/2025 amended claims 1, 6, 19 and cancelled claim 15. Claims 1-14 and 16-24 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1 and 19.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 10/28/2025 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.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 1-5, 8-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui (US 20200355992 A1) in view of Minami (US 20120113334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yui teaches an optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320; Fig. 7 and 10), adapted to a projection apparatus, the optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) comprising: an optical engine housing (240), having a first vent (upper 250) and a second vent (lower 250); a first optical element (100), disposed in the optical engine housing (240) and adjacent to the first vent (upper 250); and a heat dissipation assembly (270 280, 290), disposed outside the optical engine housing (240) and adapted to generate airflow through the first vent (upper 250), past the first optical element (100) and the second vent (lower 250), wherein the heat dissipation assembly (270 280, 290) comprises a fan (290) and an air duct (first side of 260), and the air duct (first side of 260) is connected between the first vent (upper 250) and the fan (290).
Yui does not teach an inner diameter of the air duct (first side of 260) is tapered from one end connected to the fan (290) toward another end connected to the first vent (upper 250).
Minami teaches an inner diameter of the air duct being tapered from one end toward another end connected to the vent (Fig. 7B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yui with Minami such that the inner diameter of the air duct (first side of 260) is tapered from one end connected to the fan (290) toward another end connected to the first vent (upper 250); because it allows controlling the speed and direction of the air flow.
Regarding claim 2, Yui further teaches the first optical element (100) has a side surface, a light incident side, and a light exit side, the side surface is connected between the light incident side and the light exit side, the first vent (upper 250) is opposite to the second vent (lower 250), the first optical element (100) is located between the first vent (upper 250) and the second vent (lower 250), and the side surface of the first optical element (100) is opposite to the first vent (upper 250) and the second vent (lower 250; Fig. 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 3, Yui does not teach in a direction from the light incident side to the light exit side, a width of the first vent (upper 250) is greater than a width of the side surface.
Minami teaches width of the first vent being greater than a width of the side surface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yui with Minami; because it allows air to flow in front and back of the optical element.
Regarding claim 4, Yui further teaches the first optical element (100) has a light incident side and a light exit side opposite to each other, the first vent (upper 250) is opposite to the second vent (lower 250), the first optical element (100) is located between the first vent (upper 250) and the second vent (lower 250), and the light incident side is close to and faces an area between the first vent (upper 250) and the second vent (lower 250; Fig. 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 5, Yui further teaches two dustproof members (upper and lower filters), a second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and a third optical element (lens to the right of 100), wherein the second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and the third optical element (lens to the right of 100) are disposed in the optical engine housing (240), the first optical element (100) is disposed between the second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and the third optical element (lens to the right of 100), and the two dustproof members (upper and lower filters) are respectively sealed between the second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and the optical engine housing (240) and between the third optical element (lens to the right of 100) and the optical engine housing (240; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Yui further teaches at least one filter, disposed between the air duct (first side of 260) and the first vent (upper 250; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Yui further teaches at least one filter, disposed between the air duct (first side of 260) and the fan (290; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Yui further teaches at least one filter, disposed on the second vent (lower 250; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Yui further teaches a filter, wherein the fan (290) has a third vent and a fourth vent communicating with each other, the air duct (first side of 260) is connected to the third vent, and the filter is disposed on the fourth vent ([0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Yui further teaches a filter, disposed in the air duct (first side of 260; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Yui further teaches at least one airtight member, sealed between the air duct (first side of 260) and the optical engine housing (240; Fig. 10; [0060], [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Yui further teaches at least one airtight member, sealed between the air duct (first side of 260) and the fan (290; Fig. 10, [0060], [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Yui further teaches an axial direction of the air duct (first side of 260) extends along a linear direction or an arc direction ([0053], [0055]).
Regarding claim 17, Yui further teaches the fan (290) comprises a blower fan (290).
Regarding claim 19, Yui teaches a projection apparatus (Fig. 7, 10, 11 and 12), comprising an optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) and a projection lens (330), the optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) being adapted to provide an image beam, and the projection lens (330) being disposed on a transmission path of the image beam to project the image beam, wherein the optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) comprises: an optical engine housing (240), having a first vent (upper 250) and a second vent (lower 250); a first optical element (100), disposed in the optical engine housing (240) and adjacent to the first vent (upper 250); and a heat dissipation assembly (270 280, 290), disposed outside the optical engine housing (240) and adapted to generate airflow through the first vent (upper 250), past the first optical element (100) and the second vent (lower 250), wherein the heat dissipation assembly (270 280, 290) comprises a fan (290) and an air duct (first side of 260), and the air duct (first side of 260) is connected between the first vent (upper 250) and the fan (290).
Yui does not teach an inner diameter of the air duct (first side of 260) is tapered from one end connected to the fan (290) toward another end connected to the first vent (upper 250).
Minami teaches an inner diameter of the air duct being tapered from one end toward another end connected to the vent (Fig. 7B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yui with Minami such that the inner diameter of the air duct (first side of 260) is tapered from one end connected to the fan (290) toward another end connected to the first vent (upper 250); because it allows controlling the speed and direction of the air flow.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui in view of Minami and in further view of Watanabe (US 20100225888 A1).
Regarding claim 6, neither Yui nor Minami explicitly teaches the optical engine housing (240) has two slots, and the two dustproof members are respectively disposed in the two slots.
Watanabe teaches having a filter, i.e., dustproof member/s (52) being held by a slot (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yui and Minami with Watanabe; because it allows a mechanism to change out dirty filters.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui in view of Minami and in further view of Ueda (US 20170357150 A1).
Regarding claim 7, neither Yui nor Minami explicitly teaches a second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and a third optical element (lens to the right of 100), and the first optical element (100) is disposed between the second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and the third optical element (lens to the right of 100).
Yui does not explicitly teach the optical engine housing (240) has two slots, the second optical element (lens to the left of 100) and the third optical element (lens to the right of 100) are respectively disposed in the two slots.
Ueda teaches the optical engine housing (345) has two slots, the second optical element (left 379) and the third optical element (right 379) are respectively disposed in the two slots (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yui and Minami with Ueda; because it provides a support mechanism for the lenses.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui in view of Maes (US 20180299662 A1).
Regarding claim 18, neither Yui nor Minami explicitly teaches the first optical element (100) comprises a polarizing splitting convertor.
Maes teaches first optical element (1) comprises a polarizing splitting convertor (2 and 8; [0054], [0060], [0061], [0069], [0070], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yui and Minami with Maes; because it allows controlling the direction of the light.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui in view of Minami and in further view of Yamagishi (US 20170175989 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yui further teaches a filter and, inherently, a projection apparatus housing, wherein the optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) is located in the projection apparatus housing, a vent hole (of 260 at second side) corresponding to the fan (290), and the filter is disposed on the vent hole (of 260 at second side; Fig. 7).
Neither Yui nor Minami explicitly teaches the projection apparatus housing has a vent hole corresponding to the fan (290), and the filter is disposed on the vent hole.
Yamagishi teaches air duct of the cooling system of the phosphor wheel communicate with the projection apparatus housing (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Yui and Minami with Yamagishi which consequently results in the projection apparatus housing having a vent hole corresponding to the fan (290), and the filter is disposed on the vent hole; because it allows hot air to be expelled to the outside of the projection system.
Regarding claim 21, Yui further teaches a wind duct (second side of 260) and a projection apparatus housing, wherein the optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) is located in the projection apparatus housing, a vent hole (of 260 at second side) corresponding to the fan (290), and the wind duct (second side of 260) is connected between the vent hole (of 260 at second side) and the fan (290).
Neither Yui nor Minami explicitly teaches the vent hole is on the projection apparatus housing.
Yamagishi teaches air duct of the cooling system of the phosphor wheel communicate with the projection apparatus housing (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Yui and Minami with Yamagishi which consequently results in the projection apparatus housing having a vent hole corresponding to the fan (290); because it allows hot air to be expelled to the outside of the projection system.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Yui, Minami and Yamagishi consequently results in a filter, disposed in the wind duct (second side of 260; Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Yui further teaches a filter and a projection apparatus housing, a first heat dissipation hole (of upper 260 at second side) and a second heat dissipation hole (of lower 260 at second side) communicated with each other, the optical engine module (200, 310 and/or 320) is located in the projection apparatus housing and between the first heat dissipation hole and the second heat dissipation hole, the filter is disposed on the first and second heat dissipation hole (Fig. 7).
Neither Yui nor Minami explicitly teaches the first heat dissipation hole and a second heat dissipation hole are located on the projection apparatus housing.
Yamagishi teaches air duct of the cooling system of the phosphor wheel communicate with the projection apparatus housing (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Yui and Minami with Yamagishi which consequently results the first heat dissipation hole and a second heat dissipation hole are located on the projection apparatus housing; because it allows hot air to be expelled to the outside of the projection system.
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 claims 1 and 19, applicant/s argue,
1. Minami does not disclose the limitation "wherein an inner diameter of the air duct is tapered from one end connected to the fan toward another end connected to the first vent" of amended claims 1 and 19.
The nozzle 70B of Minami is considered, by the Examiner, as corresponding to the air duct of original claim 15 of the present application, wherein the nozzle 70B of Minami is disposed on an upper surface of the duct 60 according to Figs. 6, 7B, and 8, and paragraphs [0040] and [0042] of Minami. Minami discloses that cooling air is produced by cooling fans in the duct 60 and is sent to each nozzle 70 via the duct 60. That is, the nozzles 70 are components disposed downstream of the cooling air of the duct 60, rather than connected to cooling fans. Thus, Minami does not disclose the limitation "wherein an inner diameter of the air duct is tapered from one end connected to the fan toward another end connected to the first vent' of amended claims 1 and 19.
In addition, the nozzle 70 of Minami is adapted to cool the liquid crystal light valve 30B, and the outlet 76 of the nozzle 70B aligns (or faces) to the optical elements 31 b, 32b, 33b, 34b, 35b and 36b, rather than connects to an air duct of the optical machine. Therefore, Minami does not disclose the limitation "wherein an inner diameter of the air duct is tapered from one end connected to the fan toward another end connected to the first vent' of amended claims 1 and 19…
2. Minami does not teach the limitation "wherein an inner diameter of the air duct
is tapered from one end connected to the fan toward another end connected
to the first vent" of amended claims 1 and 19.
In addition, the inner diameter decreasing from the inlet 75 to the outlet 76 is in a cavity of the nozzles 70B, which is for adjusting the inclined angles of the walls (such as an angle of the wall 81 inclined relative to the outlet 76 in FIG. 7B) and a width of the outlet 76, so as to distribute a volume and a range of the cooling air blowing to the optical elements. Each of the nozzles 70A and 70B is communicated with the duct 60. Thus, Minami fails to disclose the duct 60 tapered from one end to another end of itself, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to change the duct 60 to be tapered from one end to another end even if referring to Minami. If the duct 60 is changed to be tapered from one end to another end, it will result in a decrease in volume of the cooling air received by the nozzle located downstream of the cooling air of the duct 60, thereby going against the cooling effect of the liquid crystal light valve that Minami has to achieve.
Taking a step back, even if a combination of the duct 60 and the nozzles 70B of Minami is considered as corresponding to the air duct of the amended claims 1 and 19, the combination of the duct 60 and the nozzle 70B of Minami is just a channel constructed by connecting the duct 60 with an equal diameter to the nozzle 70B with a partial geometric change, where a connection of the channel between the duct 60 and the nozzle 70B is discontinuous and lacks a diameter decreasing from an end connected to a fan toward another end connected to a vent. Also, the channel constructed by the duct 60 and the nozzle 70B aligns to the optical elements 31b-36b, rather than connects to a vent of the outer case 1. Thus, Minami does not teach the limitation "wherein an inner diameter of the air duct is tapered from one end connected to the fan toward another end connected to the first vent" of amended claims 1 and 19.
3. There is no motivation to replace the nozzles 70 of Minami in a cone shape by
the air duct 260 of Yui.
Yui does not disclose that any of the cooling pipes 260 (considered by the Examiner as corresponding to the air duct of the present invention) has a decreased inner diameter, and the cooling pipes 260 of Yui are adapted to form a closed cooling channel between the fan and the openings 250. However, the nozzles 70 of Minami are adapted to cool the liquid crystal light valve 30B, and the inlet 75 of the nozzles 70 is only connected to the duct 60, and the outlet 76 is not connected to any component. For these reasons, the functions and the connections between the components downstream or upstream of the cooling air of the cooling pipes 260 of Yui and the nozzles 70 of Minami are essentially different from each other.
Thus, there would be no motivation to replace the nozzles 70 of Minami in the cone shape by the air duct 260 of Yui for a person having ordinary skill in the art even if referring to Yui. (Remarks; p. 10-15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Minami does not disclose the limitation "wherein an inner diameter of the air duct is tapered from one end connected to the fan toward another end connected to the first vent," the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here making the vent tapered does not produce any unpredictable results. Making the vent taper is a known method to control direction and speed of air flow as shown in Minami. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Secondly, a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention fully understands the effect/s of making the vent tapered. The need or desire to control the speed and direction of the air flow provides the motivation to make the modification.
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