Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/043,338

A multi-directional pattern projector and a hyper-resolution pattern projector

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2023
Examiner
HOWARD, RYAN D
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Arc-Y-Tec Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 997 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1036
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Acknowledgment made of amendment filed 10/06/2025. 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. Claim(s) 16-18, 20, 22-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapellner et al. (US 2006/0279662 A1) in view of Wang (US 2021/0067619 A1). Regarding claim 16, Kapellner teaches a laser source (102, figure 5; paragraph 0061) capable of emitting laser beams; One or more electrically switchable mirrors (96, figure 5, paragraph 0076), each having at least two operation modes including, a first operation mode in which the electrically switchable mirror reflects he laser beam directed thereon (L2, figure 5), and a second operation mode in which the electrically switchable mirror enables passage of the laser beams directed thereon (L1, figure 5); A plurality of optical elements (108A, 14, 20, figure5), each capable of directing the incoming laser beams via the one or more electrically switchable mirrors to one or more projection directions with respect to the laser source, wherein the incoming laser beams are reflected by one or more of the electrically switchable mirrors operating in the first operation mode, or passed through the one or more of the electrically switchable mirrors operating in the second operation mode (paragraph 0075); and A controller (paragraph 0076) capable of selectively changing an optical path of the laser beams over time by changing the operation modes of one or more of the electrically switchable mirrors. Kapellner does not teach that the switchable mirror is transflective. Wang teaches an optical path switching element that is a transflective mirror (24, figure 17; paragraph 0071). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Kapellner to use the optical path switching element of Wang in order to reduce the number of moving components and thereby reduce noise in the projection system. Regarding claim 17, Kapellner teaches in an alternative embodiment that the at least one of the multi-mode optical path controlling elements has a third operation mode in which the multi-mode optical path controlling element enables passage of a first subset of the laser beams and reflection of a second subset of the laser beams, other than the first subset (paragraph 0062; ‘a selective light director means 106 configured for selectively directing light to propagate through either one of the light channels C_1 or C_2 or both of them toward front and rear projection planes’). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the primary embodiment of Kapellner in view of Wang to include a third operation mode as taught in the alternative embodiment in order allow more users to use the device simultaneously. Kapellner does not teach that the switchable mirror is transflective. Wang teaches an optical path switching element that is a transflective mirror (24, figure 17; paragraph 0071). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Kapellner to use the optical path switching element of Wang in order to reduce the number of moving components and thereby reduce noise in the projection system. Regarding claim 18, Kapellner teaches the third operation mode is a selective mode enabling selectively determining a proportion between the first subset and the second subset (paragraph 0063, the rotation angle of the polarization rotator determines the proportion between the first and second subset). Regarding claim 20, Kapellner teaches the optical elements are MLA (paragraph 0058). Regarding claim 22, Kapellner does not teach in the embodiment relied upon that that the projector includes one or more prisms, designed to redirect the laser beam perpendicularly to a respective optical element. Wang teaches the device includes one or more prisms, designed to redirect the laser beam perpendicularly to a respective optical element (23, figure 17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Kapellner to include the prism of Wang in order to make the projection system more compact. Regarding claim 23, Kapellner teaches one or more lenses (6, figure 5), each positioned on an optical path of a respective laser beam directed at a respective optical element. Regarding claim 25, Kapellner does not teach in the embodiment relied upon that the projector comprises one or more reflective elements each positioned on the optical path of a respective laser beam directing the respective laser beam at a respective optical element. Kapellner teaches in an alternative embodiment that the projector comprises one or more reflective elements (22, 24, figure 2A) each positioned on the optical path of a respective laser beam directing the respective laser beam at a respective optical element. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Kapellner in view of Wang to use the folding mirrors of the alternative embodiment of Kapellner in order to arrange the optical path more compactly for the various viewing channels. Regarding claim 26, Kapellner teaches the controller is further configured to cause activation of the laser source in synchronicity with the desired setup of the operational modes of the electrically switchable transflective mirrors (paragraph 0076). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See reason for allowable subject matter in office action mailed 7/08/2025. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically Applicant’s arguments are directed toward Kapellner as failing to teach an electrically switchable transflective mirror, which was not present in the claims previously (see for example 19 where the mirror element is not described as transflective but only switchable). This being a new issue, Wang was introduced to teach the switchable mirror could be transflective. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00. 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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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. /RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 1/07/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587621
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND IMAGE PROJECTION DEVICE HAVING A LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587620
CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565330
AIRCRAFT BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548980
Single Element Dot Pattern Projector
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547009
EFFICIENT USER-DEFINED SDR-TO-HDR CONVERSION WITH MODEL TEMPLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 997 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month