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 and 15. Claims 1-16 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1 and 15.
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on 10/28/2025 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.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 1-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo (JP 2013041135 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nagumo a projector (Fig. 1-11) comprising: a light source apparatus (51) that outputs light containing first color light, second color light, and third color light; an image formation apparatus (55) including a first light modulator (551G) that modulates the first color light, a second light modulator (551B) that modulates the second color light, a third light modulator (551R) that modulates the third color light, and a color combiner (554) that combines the modulated first color light, second color light, and third color light with one another into image light and outputs the image light; a projection optical apparatus (56) that includes an optical path changer (59), receives the image light in a first direction (FR) from the image formation apparatus (55), guides the incident image light along the first direction (FR), changes a direction of an optical path of the image light via the optical path changer (59) to a second direction that intersects with the first direction (FR), and then projects the image light; and a cooling apparatus (Fig. 10), wherein the cooling apparatus includes a first duct (67G) provided in accordance with the first light modulator (551G), a first centrifugal fan (66G) that has an intake surface (68G) and delivers a cooling gas into the first duct (67G), a second duct (67B) provided in accordance with the second light modulator (551B), a second centrifugal fan (66B) that has an intake surface (68B) and delivers the cooling gas into the second duct (67B), a third duct (67R) provided in accordance with the third light modulator (551R), and a third centrifugal fan (66R) that has an intake surface (68R) and delivers the cooling gas into the third duct (67R), the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) are disposed in a region defined by the image formation apparatus (55) and the projection optical apparatus (56; Fig. 6),the second centrifugal fan (66B) is disposed at a position shifted from the first centrifugal fan (66G) in a third direction (RH) that intersects with the first and second directions, and a portion of the second duct (67B) overlaps with a portion of the first centrifugal fan (66G) when viewed in the third direction (RH; Fig. 6 and 9-11).
Nagumo does not teach the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) are each so oriented that an angle between an imaginary plane (UP & FR) defined by the first and second directions and their respective intake surface (68G/B/R) is greater than or equal to 0° but smaller than or equal to 45°.
Having each of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) oriented such that an angle between an imaginary plane (UP & FR) defined by the first and second directions and their respective intake surface (68G/B/R) is greater than or equal to 0° but smaller than or equal to 45° requires only rearrangement of parts that does not change the principle of operation in any way.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 2, Nagumo further teaches the second centrifugal fan (66B) is disposed at a position shifted in the second direction from the first centrifugal fan (66G; Fig. 6 and 9-11).
Regarding claim 3, Nagumo further teaches a portion of the second centrifugal fan (66B) overlaps with a portion of the first centrifugal fan (66G) when viewed in the third direction (RH; Fig. 6 and 9-11).
Regarding claim 4, Nagumo further teaches the second centrifugal fan (66B) is disposed at a position shifted in the third direction (RH) from the third centrifugal fan (66R), but Nagumo does not explicitly teach a portion of the second duct (67B) overlaps with the third centrifugal fan (66R) when viewed in the third direction (RH).
Rearranging the positions of the fans, such that a portion of the second duct (67B) overlaps with the third centrifugal fan (66R) when viewed in the third direction (RH), does not change the principle of operation of the cooling mechanism in any way.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Nagumo further teaches the first and third centrifugal fans (66G and 66R) are disposed side by side in at least one of the first and second directions, a portion of the second centrifugal fan (66B) overlaps with a portion of the first centrifugal fan (66G) when viewed in the third direction (RH), but Nagumo does not explicitly teach another portion of the second centrifugal fan (66B) overlaps with a portion of the third centrifugal fan (66R) when viewed in the third direction (RH).
Rearranging the positions of the fans, such that another portion of the second centrifugal fan (66B) overlaps with a portion of the third centrifugal fan (66R) when viewed in the third direction (RH), does not change the principle of operation of the cooling mechanism in any way.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, Nagumo further teaches a cooling gas channel length of the first duct (67G) and a cooling gas channel length of the third duct (67R) are each shorter than a cooling gas channel length of the second duct (67B; Fig. 10).
Nagumo does not explicitly teach an amount of heat generated by the first light modulator and an amount of heat generated by the third light modulator are each greater than an amount of heat generated by the second light modulator.
Rearranging the positions of the cooling components and/or the modulators, such that the second light modulator is the modulator that generates the least amount of heat, does not change the principle of operation of the cooling mechanism in any way.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Nagumo further teaches the cooling apparatus includes a fourth centrifugal fan (66L) that is disposed in a region defined by the image formation apparatus (55) and the projection optical apparatus (56), and delivers the cooling gas to a cooling target (51; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Nagumo further teaches a portion of the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) does not overlap with the first, second, or third centrifugal fan (66G/B/R) when viewed in the third direction (RH; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Nagumo further teaches a portion of the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) overlaps with a portion of at least one of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) when viewed in the third direction (RH; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Nagumo further teaches an intake surface of the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) intersects with the imaginary plane (Fig. 9), but Nagumo does not explicitly teach the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) being smaller than a largest one of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R).
Changing the size of the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) such that it is smaller than a largest one of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) does not affect the functionality of the projection system in anyway.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to change the size of the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) such that it is smaller than a largest one of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R). Furthermore, change in size without affecting the functionality is prima facie obvious. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 14, Nagumo further teaches a loudspeaker (S; Fig. 9) provided at a side across the region from the projection optical apparatus (56) when viewed in the third direction (RH), wherein the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) are disposed at positions shifted in the first direction (FR) from the loudspeaker (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Nagumo further teaches a projector (Fig. 1-11) comprising: a light source apparatus (51) that outputs light containing first color light, second color light, and third color light; an image formation apparatus (55) including a first light modulator (551G) that modulates the first color light, a second light modulator (551B) that modulates the second color light, a third light modulator (551R) that modulates the third color light, and a color combiner (554) that combines the modulated first color light, second color light, and third color light with one another into image light and outputs the image light; a projection optical apparatus (56) that includes an optical path changer (59), receives the image light in a first direction (FR) from the image formation apparatus (55), guides the incident image light along the first direction (FR), changes a direction of an optical path of the image light via the optical path changer (59) to a second direction that intersects with the first direction (FR), and then projects the image light; and a cooling apparatus, wherein the cooling apparatus includes a first duct (67G) provided in accordance with the first a first centrifugal fan (66G) that has an intake surface (68G) and delivers a cooling gas into the first duct (67G), a second duct (67B) provided in accordance with the second light modulator (551B), a second centrifugal fan (66B) that has an intake surface (68G) and delivers the cooling gas into the second duct (67B), a third duct (67R) provided in accordance with the third light modulator (551R), and a third centrifugal fan (66R) that has an intake surface (68G) and delivers the cooling gas into the third duct (67R), the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) are disposed in a region defined by the image formation apparatus (55) and the projection optical apparatus (56), the third centrifugal fan (66R) is so oriented that an angle between the imaginary plane (UP & FR) defined by the first and second directions and the intake surface (68R) is greater than 45° but smaller than or equal to 90°, the second centrifugal fan (66B) is disposed at a position shifted from the first centrifugal fan (66G) in a third direction (RH) that intersects with the first and second directions, and a portion of the second duct (67B) overlaps with a portion of the first centrifugal fan (66G) when viewed in the third direction (RH; Fig. 6 and 9-11).
Nagumo does not teach the first and second centrifugal fans (66G/B) are each so oriented that an angle between an imaginary plane (UP & FR) defined by the first and second directions and their respective intake surface (68G/B) is greater than or equal to 0° but smaller than or equal to 45°, wherein the angle formed between the imaginary plane and the intake surface of the first centrifugal fan (66G) is same as the angle formed between the imaginary plane and the intake surface of the second centrifugal fan (66B).
Having each of the first and second centrifugal fans (66G/B) oriented such that an angle between an imaginary plane (UP & FR) defined by the first and second directions and their respective intake surface (68G/B) is greater than or equal to 0° but smaller than or equal to 45° and the angle formed between the imaginary plane and the intake surface of the first centrifugal fan (66G) is same as the angle formed between the imaginary plane and the intake surface of the second centrifugal fan (66B) requires only rearrangement of parts that does not change the principle of operation in any way.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 16, Nagumo further teaches the third centrifugal fan (66R) does not overlap with the first centrifugal fan (66G) and the second centrifugal fan (66B) when viewed in the third direction (RH; Fig. 9).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo in view of Takezawa (US 20040032569 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nagumo does not explicitly teach the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) causes the cooling gas to flow to the projection optical apparatus (56).
Takezawa teaches having a fourth centrifugal fan (420) causes the cooling gas to flow to the projection optical apparatus (380; Fig. 6 and 15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Nagumo with Takezawa; because it allows cooling the projection lens.
Regarding claim 12, Nagumo further teaches an enclosure that houses the light source apparatus (51; Fig. 1-11), the image formation apparatus (55), the projection optical apparatus (56), and the cooling apparatus, wherein the enclosure has a first introduction port (32/33)) via which a gas outside the enclosure is introduced into the enclosure, and a first filter (65) provided at the first introduction port (32/33)), the first, second, third, and fourth centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) suck the gas outside the enclosure via the first filter (65).
Nagumo does not explicitly teach a suction force produced by the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) to suck the cooling gas is smaller than a cooling gas suction force produced by a centrifugal fan that produces a largest cooling gas suction force out of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R).
Having the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) to suck the cooling gas being smaller than a cooling gas suction force produced by a centrifugal fan that produces a largest cooling gas suction force out of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R) is matter of design choice; hence is it is prima facie obvious.
Furthermore, Nagumo does not teach the cooling apparatus includes a duct that couples the first filter (65) to the fourth centrifugal fan (66L) independently of the first, second, and third centrifugal fans (66G/B/R).
Takezawa teaches a duct (610) that couples the first filter (822) to the fourth centrifugal fan (420) independently (Fig. 6 and 15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Nagumo with Takezawa; because it allows cooling the projection lens.
Regarding claim 13, Nagumo further teaches the enclosure has a second introduction port (33/32) via which the gas outside the enclosure is introduced into the enclosure, and a second filter (portion of 65 corresponding to 33/32) provided at the second introduction port (33/32), the cooling apparatus includes a light source fan (66L) that delivers the cooling gas to the light source apparatus (51), an intake surface (68L) of the light source fan (66L) faces the second filter (portion of 65 corresponding to 33/32) in the third direction (RH; Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882