DETAILED ACTION
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 18/131,420 (“420 Reissue Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date is Apr. 6, 2023 (“420 Actual Filing Date”). Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this reissue application proceeding. The 420 Reissue Application contained, among other things: Reissue Application Declarations by the Assignee and a preliminary amendment.
The 420 Reissue Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,986,317 (“‘317 Patent”) titled “PROJECTION VIDEO DISPLAY DEVICE.” The 317 Patent was filed on Dec. 13, 2019 and assigned by the Office US patent application number 16/622,376 (“376 Application”) and issued on Apr. 20, 2021 with claims 1-11 (“Originally Patented Claims”).
Because the instant reissue application was filed within two years after the ‘317 Patent was issued, broadening of claim scope is allowed. See MPEP § 1401 and 35 USC § 251.
On Aug. 15, 2025, the Office mailed a non-final Office Action (“2025 Non-final Office Action”).
On Feb. 12, 2026, Applicant filed a response (“Feb 2026 Response”) to the 2025 Non-final Office Action. The Feb 2026 Response includes, among other things, “REMARKS” (“Feb 2026 Remarks”), “AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAWINGS” (“Feb 2026 Drawing Amendment”) and “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” (“Feb 2026 Claim Amendment”). Claims 6 and 9 have been amended and claims 1-11 are pending.
II. OTHER PROCEEDINGS
This section is the same as that in 2025 Non-final Office Action.
Based on the result of litigation search related to the ‘317 Patent and after the Examiner’s independent review of the ‘317 Patent itself, its prosecution history and litigation search report, the Examiner could not find any litigation and IPR related to the ‘317 Patent.
Also the Examiner could not find any reexamination proceedings related to the ‘317 Patent.
III. STATUS OF CLAIMS
In light of the above:
Claims 1-11 are currently pending (“Pending Claims”).
Claims 1-11 are examined.
As a result of the instant office action:
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
IV. PRIORITY CLAIMS
This section is the same as that in 2025 Non-final Office Action.
Based upon a review of the instant application and ‘317 Patent, the Examiner finds that the instant application is a reissue application of the 317 Patent, matured from the 376 application, which is a national stage application of PCT/JP2017/025456 filed on July 12, 2017, which also does not claim any foreign priority.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply (to the invention or claims of the instant reissue application). Instead, the earlier ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply.
VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
A. Lexicographic Definitions
After careful review of the original specification and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B. ‘Sources’ for the ‘Broadest Reasonable Interpretation’
For terms not lexicographically defined by Patent Owner, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how she is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. Processor: “1: one that processes 2. a: (1) a computer (2) The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit b : a computer program (as a compiler) that puts another program into a form acceptable to the computer “ Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary , 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
2. Configuration: “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
3. Processing: “Manipulation of data within a computer system. Processing is the vital step between receiving data (input) and producing results (output) – the task for which computers are designed” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary , 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994..
4. Controller: (5) “(A) A functional unit in a computer system that controls one or more units of the peripheral equipment.” IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
5. Driver: (1) (communication practice) An electronic circuit that supplies input to another electronic circuit. (2) (A) (software) A software module that invokes and, per- haps, controls and monitors the execution of one or more other software modules. (B) (software) A computer program that controls a peripheral device and, sometimes, reformats data for transfer to and from the device. (3) A program, circuit or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices. IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
6. Microprocessor: A central processing unit (CPU) on a single chip. Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
7. light source: A device to supply radiant energy capable of ex- citing a phototube or photocell. See also: photoelectric control. IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
8. circuit (1) (A) The physical medium on which signals are carried across the AUI. The data and control circuits consist of an A circuit and a B circuit forming a balanced transmission system so that the signal carried on the B circuit is the inverse of the signal carried on the A circuit. (B) (data transmission) A network providing one or more closed paths. (C) An arrangement of interconnected components that has at least one input and one output terminal, and whose purpose is to pro- duce at the output terminals a signal that is a function of the signal at the input terminals. Synonyms: physical circuit; net- work. See also: expansion board; channel; telecommunication circuit. (D) An arrangement of interconnected electronic components that can perform specific functions upon application of proper voltages and signals. IEEE 1000 The Authoritative dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000.
C. Claims Invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
In what follows, the Examiner takes the primary position that at least one functional phrase of claims 1-11 invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f). For support of the Examiners position the Examiner notes the appropriate 3-prong analysis. See MPEP §2181 I. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Functional Phrases
the projection video display device rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by 90°, in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device, and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #1 or FP#1, as recited in claim 1.
the projection video display device main body includes a posture detecting unit that detects whether an installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation in which a longitudinal direction of a projection video is parallel to a horizontal direction or a portrait installation in which the longitudinal direction of the projection video is parallel to a vertical direction--Functional phrase #2 or FP#2, as recited in claim 6.
upon receiving a detection signal of the portrait installation from the posture detecting unit, the projection video display device main body determines that a portrait projection is being performed and rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from a rotation direction of the projection video accompanied with a change from the landscape installation to the portrait installation by 90 and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #3 or FP#3, as recited in claim 6.
the projection video display device main body rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by the portrait converter by 90 and generates the OSD image, wherein when the installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens without going through the portrait converter is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens via the portrait converter--Functional phrase #4 or FP#4, as recited in claim 9.
the projection video display device includes a posture detecting unit that detects the installation posture of the projection video display device, and the projection video display device rotates the direction of the OSD image by 90 in accordance with a posture detection signal from the posture detecting unit and generates the OSD image --Functional phrase #5 or FP#5, as recited in claim 2.
the projection video display device ( “the projection video display device main body” for claims 7 and 10) further moves a position of the rotated OSD image to a predetermined position and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #6 or FP#6 as recited in claims 3, 7 and 10.
the projection video display device ( “the projection video display device main body” for claims 8 and 11) further changes an aspect ratio of the rotated OSD image and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #7 or FP#7, as recited in claims 4, 8 and 11.
a video display element generating a video to be projected --Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claim 1.
a projection video display device main body including a light source and a video display element, the video display element generating a video to be projected --Functional phrase #9 or FP#9, as recited in claims 6 and 9.
3-Prong Analysis
i. 3-Prong Analysis Prong (A):
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (A) requires:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (A).
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that the above Functional Phrases do not use the phrase “means for.” The issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the claimed “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” is a generic placeholder for the phrase ‘means for,’ i.e., being applied as a generic means for performing the function. See MPEP 2181 I.C.
First, the Examiner has reviewed the specification and concludes that the specification does not provide a description sufficient to inform a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) that the term “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” denotes sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. However, the Examiner finds that A PHOSITA understands that an ordinary “detecting unit” or “display device” cannot perform the entire claimed function respectively. Other structural elements are needed.
Second, the Examiner has reviewed both general dictionaries and subject matter specific dictionaries for evidence to establish that the term “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body”“ has achieved recognition as noun denoting structure. Based upon a review of these dictionaries, the Examiner is unable to locate sufficient evidence that “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure for performing the claimed function. For example, see the section of Sources for BRI above, showing that processor commonly has enough structure to perform a general computer function (See MPEP § 2181.II.B). However, the Examiner finds that A PHOSITA understands that ordinary processors with CPU and memory, cannot perform the entire claimed function. Other structural elements are needed.
Finally, the Examiner has reviewed the prior art of record for evidence that “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” has an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. Based upon a review of the prior art now of record, the Examiner is unable to locate sufficient evidence to establish that term “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” has an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function respectively.
Accordingly the Examiner concludes that the phrase “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” as set forth in the above Functional Phrases is being used as a generic term for a structure performing the function, and therefore a place holder for the phrase “means for” performing the recited function respectively. Because “detecting unit,” or “the projection video display device” or “the projection video display device main body” is merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith, the Examiner concludes that above Functional Phrases meets invocation Prong (A).
ii. 3-Prong Analysis Prong (B):
In accordance with the MPEP prong (B) requires:
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” ....
MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (B).
Based upon a review of claims 1-11 and FP#1-FP#9, the Examiner finds that the functions associated with the Functional Phrases #1-#7 are listed below:
rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by 90°, in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device, and generates the OSD image—Functions of Functional phrase #1 or FP#1, as recited in claim 1.
detects whether an installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation in which a longitudinal direction of a projection video is parallel to a horizontal direction or a portrait installation in which the longitudinal direction of the projection video is parallel to a vertical direction—Functions of Functional phrase #2 or FP#2, as recited in claim 6.
upon receiving a detection signal of the portrait installation from the posture detecting unit, determines that a portrait projection is being performed and rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from a rotation direction of the projection video accompanied with a change from the landscape installation to the portrait installation by 90 and generates the OSD image-- Functions of Functional phrase #3 or FP#3, as recited in claim 6.
rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by the portrait converter by 90 and generates the OSD image, wherein when the installation state of the projection video display device is a state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens without going through the portrait converter is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens via the portrait converter-- Functions of Functional phrase #4 or FP#4, as recited in claim 9.
detects the installation posture of the projection video display device, and the projection video display device rotates the direction of the OSD image by 90 in accordance with a posture detection signal from the posture detecting unit and generates the OSD image -- Functions of Functional phrase #5 or FP#5, as recited in claim 2.
moves a position of the rotated OSD image to a predetermined position and generates the OSD image-- Functions of Functional phrase #6 or FP#6 as recited in claims 3, 7 and 10.
changes an aspect ratio of the rotated OSD image and generates the OSD image-- Functions of Functional phrase #7 or FP#7, as recited in claims 4, 8 and 11.
generating a video to be projected – Functions of Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claim 1.
generating a video to be projected -- Functions of Functional phrase #9 or FP#9, as recited in claims 6 and 9.
iii. 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (C) requires:
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
MPEP § 2181 I — Prong (C)
Based upon a review of each of the entire Functional Phrases above, the Examiner finds that the above Functional Phrases do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed functions that is set forth within the Functional Phrases. In fact, the Examiner finds that the Functional Phrases recites very little structure (if any) for performing the claimed function.
Because the above Functional Phrases do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function, the Examiner concludes that the above Functional Phrases meet invocation Prong (C).
Corresponding Structure for Functional Phrases
Based upon a review of the original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the corresponding structure/algorithms for functional phrases as follows:
FP#1
the projection video display device rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by 90°, in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device, and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #1 or FP#1, as recited in claim 1
-- the structure of the projection video display device appears to be the “Portrait Converter 3” illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2 which “a converter optical system 31, a converter lens shift drive unit 32, the lens ID switching unit 33, a converter control unit 34, a posture detecting unit 35, and a converter power source unit 36.” The structure of the projection video display device also appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in the embodiment of Fig. 6, which comprises the Posture Detection Unit 18, the Main Body Control Unit 16, the Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit, described in col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent.
Upon receiving the posture detection signal from the posture detecting unit 35, the converter control unit 34 causes the lens ID switching unit 33 to select the ID number to be displayed in a direction in which the OSD image can be read normally at the current posture. The lens ID switching unit 33 gives an indication of a selected ID number to the main body control unit 16 of the projection video display device main body 1. Accordingly, the main body control unit 16 transmits the OSD image corresponding to the ID number to the video display element 13. That is, for example, in the case of the stationary installation, the OSD image is rotated by 90° in the opposite direction to the image rotation direction by portrait converter 3, and in the case of the ceiling installation, the OSD image is rotated by 90° in the same direction as the image rotation direction by the portrait converter 3. At this time, the display position of the OSD image in the screen may be further moved to a predetermined position, or the aspect ratio of the OSD image may be further changed.
-col. 4, lines 38-55 of the ‘317 Patent.
Upon receiving the detection signal of the portrait installation from the posture detecting unit 18, the main body control unit 16 determines that the portrait projection is being performed, rotates the OSD image by 90°, and transmits it to the video display element 13. At this time, the display position of the OSD image in the screen may be further moved to a predetermined position, or the aspect ratio of the OSD image may be further changed. Alternatively, the main body control unit 16 may prepare a dedicated OSD image for the portrait projection in advance and switch to the dedicated OSD image at the time of portrait projection.
-col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent.
However, the actual structure or algorithm for the rotation or how the rotation is performed is not sufficiently described. It is not clear what the ID number corresponding to and how the rotation is performed with the lens ID switching unit 13 in the first embodiment, i.e., the embodiment of Fig. 2.
Further, for the embodiment of Fig. 6 which is the current embodiment being claimed, there is no sufficient description of how the rotation is performed. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#2
the projection video display device main body includes a posture detecting unit that detects whether an installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation in which a longitudinal direction of a projection video is parallel to a horizontal direction or a portrait installation in which the longitudinal direction of the projection video is parallel to a vertical direction--Functional phrase #2 or FP#2, as recited in claim 6.
-- The structure of the posture detecting unit appears to be illustrated as the Posture Detection Unit 18 in Fig. 6.
However, there is no description on the structure of the Posture Detection Unit 18 in Fig. 6. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#3
upon receiving a detection signal of the portrait installation from the posture detecting unit, the projection video display device main body determines that a portrait projection is being performed and rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from a rotation direction of the projection video accompanied with a change from the landscape installation to the portrait installation by 90 and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #3 or FP#3, as recited in claim 6.
-- The structure of the projection video display device main body appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 6, which comprises the Posture Detection Unit 18, the Main Body Control Unit 16, the Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit, described in col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent.
However there is no sufficient description of the corresponding structure or algorithm for the rotation. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#4
the projection video display device main body rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by the portrait converter by 90 and generates the OSD image, wherein when the installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens without going through the portrait converter is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens via the portrait converter--Functional phrase #4 or FP#4, as recited in claim 9
-- the structure of the projection video display device main body appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 1 which comprises Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit 14, Main Body Control Unit 16, Video Display Element 13. The main body control unit 16 performs the rotation based on the selected ID number transmitted by the Lens ID switching unit 33 as described in col. 4, lines 42-53 of the ‘317 Patent.
However, there is no sufficient description on the corresponding structure or algorithm on rotation. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#5
the projection video display device includes a posture detecting unit that detects the installation posture of the projection video display device--Functional phrase #5 or FP#5, as recited in claim 2.
-- The structure of the posture detecting unit appears to be illustrated as the Posture Detection Unit 18 in Fig. 6 or the Posture Detection Unit 35 in Fig. 2. However, there is no sufficient description on the structure of the Posture Detection Unit 35 in Fig. 2 or the Posture Detection Unit 18 in Fig. 6. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#6
the projection video display device (the projection video display device main body for claims 8 and 11 further moves a position of the rotated OSD image to a predetermined position and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #6 or FP#6 as recited in claims 3, 7 and 10
-- the structure of the projection video display device appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 1 which comprises Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit 14, Main Body Control Unit 16, Video Display Element 13. The main body control unit 16 performs the move as described in col. 4, lines 53-56. The structure of the projection video display device also appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 6, which comprises the Posture Detection Unit 18, the Main Body Control Unit 16, the Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit, described in col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent.
For claim 7, the structure of the projection video display device appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 1 which comprises Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit 14, Main Body Control Unit 16, Video Display Element 13. The main body control unit 16 performs the move as described in col. 4, lines 53-56.
For claim 10, the structure of the projection video display device also appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 6, which comprises the Posture Detection Unit 18, the Main Body Control Unit 16, the Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit, described in col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent. However the corresponding structure or algorithm for the move is not sufficiently described. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
However the corresponding structure or algorithm for the move is not sufficiently described. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#7
the projection video display device (the projection video display device main body for claims 8 and 11) further changes an aspect ratio of the rotated OSD image and generates the OSD image--Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claims 4, 8 and 11.
-- For claim 4, the structure of the projection video display device appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 1 which comprises Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit 14, Main Body Control Unit 16, Video Display Element 13. The main body control unit 16 performs the change as described in col. 4, lines 53-56. The structure of the projection video display device also appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 6, which comprises the Posture Detection Unit 18, the Main Body Control Unit 16, the Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit, described in col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent.
For claim 8, the structure of the projection video display device main body appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 1 which comprises Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit 14, Main Body Control Unit 16, Video Display Element 13. The main body control unit 16 performs the change as described in col. 4, lines 53-56.
For claim 11, the structure of the projection video display device main body also appears to be the “Projection Video Display Device Main Body” illustrated in Fig. 6, which comprises the Posture Detection Unit 18, the Main Body Control Unit 16, the Main Body Lens Shift Drive Unit, described in col. 6, lines 39-50 of the ‘317 Patent.
However the corresponding structure or algorithm for the change is not sufficiently described. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#8
a video display element generating a video to be projected --Functional phrase #8 or FP#8, as recited in claim 1.
-the corresponding element is shown as Video Display Element 13 in Fig. 2 which is a an RGB liquid crystal panel (col. 3, lines 64-65 of the ‘317 Patent).
However the actual structure or algorithm of generating video is not sufficiently described. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
FP#9
a projection video display device main body including a light source and a video display element, the video display element generating a video to be projected --Functional phrase #9 or FP#9, as recited in claims 6 and 9.
-the corresponding element is shown as Video Display Element 13 in Fig. 2 which is a an RGB liquid crystal panel (col. 3, lines 64-65 of the ‘317 Patent).
However the actual structure or algorithm of generating video is not sufficiently described. Therefore a rejection under § 112 (b) is advanced.
4) Analysis of other dependent claims
Claims 2-5 depends on claim 1, claims 7-8 depend on claim 6 and claims 10-11 depend on claim 9. The Functional Phrases FP#1-#9 in claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10-11 (if applicable) also invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f). Therefore analysis of the corresponding structures for the above Functional Phrases modified by claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10-11 are the same as identified above for the corresponding Functional Phrases.
VII. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
A. Indefinite structure
Claim limitations FP#1-FP#9 invokes § 112 (f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, there is no sufficient disclosure of corresponding structure/algorithm for the processing function in FP#2” in claim 1. Therefore, the claims having FP#1-FP#9 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)
B. Indefinite limitation
1) the projection video display device in claim 1
Claim 1 recites, among other things, “the projection video display device rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by 90°, in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device, and generates the OSD image.”
Claim 1 recites “a projection video display device” comprising “a video display element generating a video to be projected,” “a projection lens” and then recites “the projection video display device rotates….”
It is not clear which component of the projection video display device performs the rotation. A product claim distinguishes itself by structure, not by the use. Because the structure or component of the projection video display device that performs the rotation cannot be ascertained, the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claims 2-4 also recite functions performed by the projection video display device and are rejected as well.
Claim 6 or claim 9 recites “a projection video display” comprising a “projection video display main body” which performs the rotation and therefore claims 6 and 9 are not rejected.
2) limitation in claim 5 and claim 9
Claim 5 recites “The projection video display device according to claim 1, wherein when the installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens.”
The sentence in claim 5 is not complete and the meaning of claim 5 cannot be ascertained and therefore claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites, among other things, “when the installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens without going through the portrait converter is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens via the portrait converter.”
The sentence in claim 9 is not complete and the meaning of claim 9 cannot be ascertained and therefore claim 9 is indefinite.
C. Trying to construe
The Examiner concludes that because claims 1-11 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), these claims, by definition, cannot be properly construed. See e.g. Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 341 F.3d 1332, 1342, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP § 2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing prior art rejections even though the claims are indefinite, these indefinite claims are construed and the prior art is applied as much as practically possible.
IX. 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.
A. Claims 1-2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US Patent Pub. 2016/0366384) in view of Funada (US Patent Pub. 2015/0193913).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Miyata teaches a projection video display device comprising:
a light source (Figs 3A-7B, Fig. 2);
a video display element generating a video to be projected (Fig. 2, e.g., the OSD processing portion 33 or the Liquid Crystal Panel Driving Portion 34 together with the Liquid Crystal Panel will generate a video to be projected); and
a projection lens that magnifies and projects the video (19 in Figs. 1A-2, the figures show that the video is magnified);
wherein the projection video display device rotates the video generated by the video display element around an optical axis by 90° ([0042], “… in a case where projection is performed in the side installation posture, a vertically long image (for example, an image obtained by rotating an image of an aspect ratio of 4:3 by about 90° is projected.”).
However, Miyata does not expressly disclose
wherein the projection video display device rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by 90°, in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device, and generates the OSD image.
In the same field of endeavor, Funada discloses
[0049] The OSD rotation portion 10 (on-screen rotation unit) includes a buffer (not illustrated) and replaces horizontal pixel data and vertical pixel data of an input OSD image (on-screen display) generated by the OSD generation portion 6 with each other. In this embodiment, the OSD rotation portion 10 rotates the on-screen display depending on the format (first signal format or second signal format) of the image. Accordingly, the OSD rotation portion 10 is capable of rotate the OSD image by 90 degrees in the clockwise direction or the counterclockwise direction. In this embodiment, for ease of explanation, it is assumed that the buffer of the OSD rotation portion 10 is addressed in a matrix.
-[0049] of Funada, emphasis added.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-Fig. 3 of Funada showing two formats and OSD are rotated according to the format.
In other words, the OSD image in Funada is generated based on the format of the image being displayed which is in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device. See also Figs. 1 and 8, [0050], [0052], [0054]-[0056], and [0058]-[0060] of Funada.
It is necessary to rotate on-screen display for the viewing of a user ([0004]-[0007] of Funada). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the ‘317 Patent effectively filed, to use the method of Funada in the apparatus of Miyata so that the OSD can be viewed correctly with the image or video displayed.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Miyata and Funada teach the projection video display device according to claim 1, wherein the projection video display device includes a posture detecting unit that detects the installation posture of the projection video display device, and the projection video display device rotates the direction of the OSD image by 90° in accordance with a posture detection signal from the posture detecting unit and generates the OSD image (Funada, the Vertical Information Detection Portion 8 “detects the information on the vertical direction of the original image contained in the image input via the input terminal 1.” [0046], the Vertical Information Detection Portion 8 is equivalent to the posture detecting unit because when the installation posture of the projection video display device is rotated, the vertical direction of the displayed image is also rotated and detected. See also the Format Determination Portion 2 in Fig. 1 which can also detect the posture of the installation of the display device and Fig. 3).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Miyata and Funada teach the projection video display device according to claim 1, wherein when the installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens (Funada, Fig. 3 and Fig. 8 and associated descriptions).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
-Fig. 8 of Funada.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites similar limitation as claim 2 and therefore claim 6 is similarly rejected based on Miyata and Funada as explained above for claims 1 and 2.
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Miyata teaches a projection video display device that projects a video, comprising:
a projection video display device main body including a light source and a video display element, the video display element generating a video to be projected (Figs. 1A-1B and 2)
a portrait converter that rotates the video generated by the projection video display device main body around an optical axis by 90° ([0042], “… in a case where projection is performed in the side installation posture, a vertically long image (for example, an image obtained by rotating an image of an aspect ratio of 4:3 by about 90° is projected.”); and
However Miyata does not expressly disclose:
a projection lens that magnifies and projects the video rotated by the portrait converter, wherein the projection video display device main body rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by the portrait converter by 90° and generates the OSD image,
In the same field of endeavor, Funada discloses
[0049] The OSD rotation portion 10 (on-screen rotation unit) includes a buffer (not illustrated) and replaces horizontal pixel data and vertical pixel data of an input OSD image (on-screen display) generated by the OSD generation portion 6 with each other. In this embodiment, the OSD rotation portion 10 rotates the on-screen display depending on the format (first signal format or second signal format) of the image. Accordingly, the OSD rotation portion 10 is capable of rotate the OSD image by 90 degrees in the clockwise direction or the counterclockwise direction. In this embodiment, for ease of explanation, it is assumed that the buffer of the OSD rotation portion 10 is addressed in a matrix.
-[0049] of Funada, emphasis added.
In other words, the OSD image in Funada is generated based on the format of the image being displayed which is in accordance with an installation posture of the projection video display device. See also Figs. 1 and 8, [0050], [0052], [0054]-[0056], and [0058]-[0060] of Funada.
It is necessary to rotate on-screen display for the viewing of a user ([0004]-[0007] of Funada). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the ‘317 Patent effectively filed, to use the method of Funada in the apparatus of Miyata so that the OSD can be viewed correctly with the image or video displayed. See also the rejection of claim 1 above.
Funada further discloses:
wherein when the installation state of the projection video display device is a landscape installation state in which a longitudinal direction of the video projected from the projection lens without going through the portrait converter is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein a video of a portrait screen is projected from the projection lens via the portrait converter (Funada, Fig. 3 and Fig. 8 and associated descriptions).
B. Claims 3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in view of Funada, further in view of Hirao et al (US Patent Pub 2003/0095239, “Hirao”).
Claims 3, 7 and 10
Regarding claims 3, 7 and 10, Miyata and Funada teach the projection video display device according to claims 1, 6 and 9. However they do not expressly teach “wherein the projection video display device further moves a position of the rotated OSD image to a predetermined position and generates the OSD image.”
In the same field of endeavor, Hirao discloses
[0027] FIGS. 7a and 7b are schematic views showing that the display position of an OSD image is controlled such that the OSD image is positioned in a lower part of a video in a case where a liquid crystal projector is installed with the top thereof directed upward as shown in FIG. 1; and
[0028] FIGS. 8a and 8b are schematic views showing that the display position of an OSD image is controlled such that the OSD image is positioned in a lower part of a video in a case where a liquid crystal projector is installed with the top thereof directed downward, as shown in FIG. 3.
-[0027]-[0028] of Hirao, emphasis added.
In other words, Hirao discloses moving a position of the OSD image to a predetermined position and generates the OSD image. See also [0036]-[0039] of Hirao.
It is desirable to have “a projection type display device capable of keeping the decrease in the amount of information related to an OSD image caused by trapezoidal distortion correction low and capable of making the OSD image easy to see.” ([0015] of Hirao). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention of the ‘317 Patent to use the method of Hirao in the apparatus of Miyata and Funada to move the OSD image so that distortion and quality of the images/video projected can be better to see.
C. Claims 4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US Patent Pub. 2016/0366384) in view of Funada (US Patent Pub. 2015/0193913), further in view of Matsumoto (US Patent Pub 2015/0334337). Claims 1-2, 5, 6, and 9 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in view of Funada, further in view of Matsumoto.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 6 and 9, it is Examiner’s position that Miyata and Funada disclose the limitation “a projection lens that magnifies video.”
To the extent that Miyata and Funada do not expressly disclose this limitation, Matsumoto discloses “a projected image on the screen SC is brought into focus and zoom adjustment in which the degree of expansion and reduction of the projected image is adjusted” ([0035]). See also [0042] of Matsumoto.
It is desirable to view an image satisfactorily as the viewer views the typical image ([0053] of Matsumoto) and magnifying an image or video is notoriously well known in the art so that a person can see more details of the image or video. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention of the ‘317 Patent to use the method of Matsumoto in the apparatus of Miyata and Funada to magnify the video or images so that the image or video can be viewed satisfactorily.
Claims 4, 8 and 11
Regarding claims 4, 8 and 11, Miyata and Funada teach the projection video display device according to claims 1, 6 and 9. However they do not expressly teach wherein the projection video display device further changes an aspect ratio of the rotated OSD image and generates the OSD image. In the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto (US Patent Pub 2015/0334337) discloses
[0053] The projection unit 60 produces image light representing the OSD combined image 110B and outputs the produced image light out of the projection system 66. The outputted image light passes through the anamorphic lens, which changes the aspect ratio of the OSD combined image 110B to the aspect ratio corresponding to the cinemascope size, and the resultant image light is projected on the screen SC. The viewer views an image 120 having the changed aspect ratio on the screen SC. As a result, the viewer can view an OSD image picture in the picture image 120 as satisfactorily as the viewer views the typical OSD image 105A. Further, in a projection area where the projection system 66 can perform projection, since the area of an OSD image picture is not widened, the viewer does not sense degradation in visibility of moving images.
-[0053] of Matsumoto, emphasis added.
It is desirable to view an OSD image satisfactorily as the viewer views the typical OSD image ([0053] of Matsumoto). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention of the ‘317 Patent to use the method of Matsumoto in the apparatus of Miyata and Funada to change the aspect ratio of the OSD image so that the combined image can be viewed satisfactorily.
X. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
A. Claim Objection
The Claim Objection in Aug 2025 Non-final Office action has been overcome in view of Feb 2026 Claim Amendment and is hereby withdrawn.
B. § 112 (f)
Applicant argues that FP#1-FP#9 do not invoke § 112 (f) by asserting “an ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would understand the terms … to have a sufficiently definite meaning…” (Feb 2026 Remarks, pp. 13-14). Applicant then cited sections from the specification and drawing to indicate the structure of these terms (Feb 2026 Remarks, pp. 13-18).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
For determining whether functional phrases invoke § 112 (f), one should following the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181 by looking into the claims and determine if the claims themselves recite sufficient structure. Only when the functional phrase are determined to invoke § 112 (f), one looks into the specification for the corresponding structure. Applicant identifies structure from the specification is in fact in agreement that these functional phrases invoke § 112 (f).
All the claims in the instant reissue application are product claims or apparatus claims. The functional phrases FP#1-FP#9 recite the functions performed by the apparatus, not the structure of the apparatus. Based on the three-prong analysis, these functional phrases invoke § 112 (f) and therefore the invocation of § 112 (f) of FP#1-FP#9 are maintained.
C. § 112 (b)
The rejection under § 112 (b) for claims 6 and 9 have been overcome in view of Feb 2026 Claim Amendment and is hereby withdrawn.
However, the rejection under § 112 (b) for failing to clearly link or associate the claimed function to some corresponding structure (i.e., lacking corresponding structure for the functional phrases) has not been overcome. Applicant cited big sections from the specification but failed to point out the corresponding structure sufficient for performing each of the functional phrases being rejected. In other words, Applicant is providing some disclosure and is essentially saying, ‘Examiner, read this and figure it out.’ “The duty of a patentee to clearly link or associate structure with the claimed function is the quid pro quo for allowing the patentee to express the claim in terms of function under section 112, paragraph 6. [Emphasis added.]” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2001)). Merely pointing to sections or boxes representing different components is not sufficient for identifying the corresponding structure for performing the functions in the functional phrases.
Regarding the claimed “posture sensor,” the Examiner has carefully reviewed the original specification and cannot locate a lexicographic definition with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Second, although the Examiner recognizes that each word within the phrase may have a particular meaning, the arrangement of these words within the context of this phrase does not reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in this art the overall meaning of the claimed phrase. Third, the Examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in conjunction with MPEP §2141.03 including the original specification and claims. Therefore based at least upon the three points noted above and using the required precepts of English grammar, it is the Examiner’s position that the phrase “posture sensor” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is neither lexicographically defined by Applicant nor known to those of ordinary skill in this art. However, if Applicant believes that the phrase is old and well known in the art, Applicant should (in their next appropriately filed response) expressly state on the record that the phrase is old and well known in the art and provide appropriate evidence in support thereof (e.g. a U.S. patent). Upon receiving (1) Applicants’ express statement that the phrase is old and well known in the art and (2) sufficient evidence in support thereof, the Examiner will reconsider this particular § 112 ¶ 2 rejection.
D. 35 U.S.C § 103
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103, Applicant argues “when the orientation of a projected image is rotated by 90 degrees, the OSD (on screen display) image included in the image is also rotated by 90 degrees to correct orientation based on an installation of the projection video display device” (Feb 2026 Remarks, pp. 22-23) and
PNG
media_image3.png
336
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
-Feb 2026 Remarks, p. 23.
It appears that Applicant argues that the OSD images in Funada are not rotated by separately to correct orientation, rather, the OSD images in Funada are superimposed with the image and then are rotated as a superimposed images.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the rejection of Aug 2025 Non-final Office action, several paragraphs of Funada are cited including cited including [0050], [0052], [0054]-[0056 and [0058]-[0060] which describe the second embodiment of Funada. The display apparatus 100b in Fig. 6 “includes the input terminal 1, the format determination portion 2, the OSD superposition portion 5, the OSD generation portion 6, an OSD rotation portion 10, a display controller 11, a rotation controller 12, and a display portion 13.” ([0048] of Funada).
Funada further discloses
[0050] When the input OSD image is to be rotated in the clockwise direction, the writing of the input OSD image is performed so that the writing on one horizontal line from the left end pixel toward the right end pixel is performed from the upper end toward the lower end for each frame. The reading of the OSD image is performed so that the reading on one vertical line from the lower end toward the upper end of the OSD image in the buffer is performed from the left end toward the right end. …
[0058]…when the menu display is to be performed, the OSD rotation portion 10 superposes the menu that is rotated by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise direction by using the OSD superposition portion 5. As a result, an output image (image i803) of the OSD superposition portion 5 is obtained. Then, the display controller 11 controls the scanning direction of the display portion 13 so as to rotate the output image from the OSD superposition portion 5 by 90 degrees in the clockwise direction. As a result, an image i804 is displayed on the display portion 13 as an output image of the display portion 13. …
-[0050] and [0058] of Funada.
PNG
media_image4.png
362
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
-Fig. 6 of Funada.
As can be seen above, Funda discloses rotating the OSD images by 90 degrees so that the orientation of the OSD image is correct for display with the image and then superimposed with the image. In other words, Funada meets the claim limitation of claim 1 :
wherein the projection video display device main body rotates a direction of an on screen display (OSD) image in the video generated by the video display element in an opposite direction from or in a same direction as a rotation direction of the video by the portrait converter by 90° and generates the OSD image.
Similar limitations are recited in claim 6 and 9 and therefore rejections under 35 USC § 103 have not been overcome.
X. CONCLUSION
A. Action is Final
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 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.
B. Reissue Application Reminders
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicants are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
C. Suggested Examples: Preventing Both New Matter Rejections & Objections to the Specification in the Future
Applicants are respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicants decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicants to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicants are also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicants amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicants are encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicants choose to amend the specification, Applicants are reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicants have any questions on this matter, Applicants are encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
D. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to YUZHEN GE whose telephone number is (571)272-7636. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of reissue applications may be obtained from the USPTO’s “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.
/Yuzhen Ge/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the 317 Patent, or in the prior art.