DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
The filing on 11/26/2025 amended claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 20 and cancelled claim 2. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1 and 20.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 11/26/2025 appropriately amended the title and claim 11; hence the objections to the title and claim 11 made the last office action are withdrawn.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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote (US 20080198338 A1) in view of Engle (US 20060290897 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yokote teaches control method of a projector (Fig. 1-11B), the method comprising: selecting a plurality of driving modes by a user ([0042]); driving a driving device (204, 303, 114) for moving a housing (101) based on a driving mode selected by the user among the plurality of driving modes (Fig. 4A and 4B); moving the housing (101) to a front surface of the projector (Fig. 1-11B) by the driving device (204, 303, 114); and projecting an image to a direction of a upper surface or a direction of a rear surface of the projector (Fig. 1-11B) in the front surface of the projector (Fig. 1-11B) by an optical engine (103, 105) provided on the housing (101; Fig. 4A and 4B) through a projection surface, wherein the plurality of driving modes comprises: a first mode (Fig. 2A, 2B, 4A, 7A, 7B) in which a lens of the optical engine (103, 105) is exposed to an outside of a main body (200) and the housing (101) of the projector (Fig. 1-11B) is moved to a direction of the front surface of the main body (200) by a first distance; and a second mode (Fig. 3A, 3B, 4B, 8A, 8B) in which the housing (101) of the projector (Fig. 1-11B) is moved to the direction of the front surface of the main body (200) by a second distance that is longer than the first distance.
Yokote does not explicitly teach the method further comprises: driving the driving device to move the housing completely inside of the main body and seal an inside of the main body with the optical engine and the projection surface therein.
Engle teaches the method further comprises: driving the driving device to move the housing (510) completely inside of the main body (500) and seal an inside of the main body (500) with the optical engine (550/540) and the projection surface therein (Fig. 5A-8B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yokote with Engle; because it improves the portability of the projection system when the system is not in operation.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote in view of Perkins (US 20060072080 A1) and in further view of Engle.
Regarding claim 1, Yokote teaches a projector (Fig. 1-11B) comprising: a main body (200); an optical engine (103, 105) configured to project an image; a housing (101) on which the optical engine (103, 105) is provided, the housing (101) being movable to an inside area of the main body (200) or to a front surface of the main body (200); a driving device (204, 303, 114) configured to move the housing (101; [0041], [0042], [0055]), wherein the optical engine (103, 105) further configured to project the image to at least one direction in the front surface of the main body (200) through a projection surface (106; Fig. 4A-4B).
Yokote does not explicitly teach a processor configured to control the driving device (204, 303, 114) based on an operation mode of the projector (Fig. 1-11B).
Perkins teaches processor (62, 64) configured to control the driving device (50) based on an operation mode of the projector ([0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yokote with Perkins; because it allows automating the movement of the drive mechanism as suggested by Yokote ([0041], [0042]).
Neither Yokote nor Perkins specifically teaches the housing configured to be moved completely into the inside area of the main body and seal the inside area of the main body with the optical engine and the projection surface sealed therein.
Engle teaches the housing (510) configured to be moved completely into the inside area of the main body (500) and seal the inside area of the main body (500) with the optical engine (550/540) and the projection surface sealed therein (Fig. 5A-8B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yokote and Perkins with Engle; because it improves the portability of the projection system when the system is not in operation.
Regarding claim 3, Yokote further teaches the at least one direction corresponds to a direction of an upper surface of the main body (200) or to a direction of a rear surface of the main body (200; Fig. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 4, Yokote further teaches the operation mode comprises: a first mode in which a lens of the optical engine (103, 105) is exposed to an outside of the main body (200) and the housing (101) protrudes to a direction of the front surface of the main body (200) by a first distance (Fig. 4A, 7A and 7B); and a second mode in which the housing (101) protrudes to the direction of the front surface of the main body (200) by a second distance, the second distance being longer than the first distance (Fig. 4B, 8A and 8B).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, and Engle consequently results in the processor (62, 64 of Perkins) further configured to adjust a layout of the image based on a location of the optical engine (103, 105 of Yokote), the location of the optical engine (103, 105; [0060]-[0061] of Yokote) being controlled by the processor (62, 64 of Perkins).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, and Engle consequently results in the processor (62, 64 of Perkins) further configured to control the driving device (204, 303, 114 of Yokote) to locate the optical engine (103, 105 of Yokote) in a location corresponding to a screen ratio of the image ([0030], [0041], [0042] of Yokote).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, and Engle consequently results in the processor (62, 64 of Perkins) further configured to control the driving device (204, 303, 114 of Yokote) to located the optical engine (103, 105 of Yokote) in a location designated by a user ([0030], [0041], [0042] of Yokote).
Regarding claim 8, Yokote further teaches the main body (200) further comprises a main groove (203) configured to guide the housing (101) being movable to the front surface of the main body (200), wherein a horizontal width of the front surface of the housing (101) is substantially identical or identical to a horizontal width of the main groove (203; Fig. 1A-3B).
The combination of Yokote, Perkins, and Engle consequently results in, based on the housing (510 of Engle) being placed in the inside area of the main body (500 of Engle), a front surface of the housing (510 of Engle) is formed in an identical shape to the front surface of the main body (500 of Engle), and the front surface of the main body (500 of Engle) and the front surface of the housing (510 of Engle) are connected so as to seal the inside area of the main body (500 of Engle).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yokote, Perkins and Engle consequently results in based on the housing (510 of Engle) being sealed in the inside area of the main body (500 of Engle).
Neither Yokote, Perkins nor Morikuni explicitly teach a vertical length of the front surface of the housing is substantially identical or identical to a vertical length of the front surface of the main body.
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 have the vertical length of the front surface of the housing (101) being substantially identical or identical to the vertical length of the front surface of the main body (200). Furthermore, having the vertical length of the front surface of the housing (101) being substantially identical or identical to the vertical length of the front surface of the main body (200) is an issue of design or aesthetic choice. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 17, Yokote further teaches the main body (200) comprises a groove (203) configured to guide the housing (101) to move linearly, wherein the housing (101) further comprises a guide rail (107) formed along a longitudinal direction of the housing (101) on a lower surface of the housing (101).
Yokote does not teach explicitly the main body (200) comprises a guide rail and the housing (101) further comprises a groove.
Having the main body (200) comprising a guide rail and the housing (101) further comprising a groove amounts to 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. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 18, Yokote further teaches main body (200) further comprises a first groove (203) formed on a side surface of main body (200), and wherein the driving device (204, 303, 114) comprises: a first motor (204) placed in the first groove (203) and configured to drive the housing (101; [0041], [0042], [0055]); a first gear (301) connected to a driving axis of the first motor (204); and a first rack gear (108) engaged with the first gear (301), the first rack gear (108) being formed along a moving direction of the housing (101).
Yokote does not teach the housing (101) further comprising the first groove (203) formed on a side surface of the housing (101), and the driving device (204, 303, 114) comprising the first motor placed in the first groove and configured to drive the housing (101; [0041], [0042], [0055]).
Having the first groove formed on a side surface of the housing (101) and the first motor placed in the first groove amounts to 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. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 19, Yokote further teaches the main body (200) further comprises a second groove (the other 203) connected with the driving device (204, 303, 114) on a rear surface of main body (200) further, and wherein the driving device (204, 303, 114) comprises: a second motor (204; [0041], [0042], [0055]) configured to drive the housing (101); and a rotation axis of which one end is coupled with the second groove and the other end is connected with the second motor (204), and wherein the rotation axis is configured to convert a rotation movement of the second motor (204) into a linear movement of the housing (101).
Yokote does not teach the housing (101) further comprises the second groove (the other 203) connected with the driving device (204, 303, 114) on a rear surface of the housing (101).
Having the housing (101) further comprises the second groove (the other 203) connected with the driving device (204, 303, 114) on a rear surface of the housing (101) amounts to 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. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote in view of Perkins and Engle and in further view of Okura (US 20140132847 A1).
Regarding claim 10, neither Yokote, Perkins, nor Engle teaches a first guide member (50) coupled with a rear surface of the main body (200), the first guide member (50) having a length protruding by a first predetermined distance.
Okura teaches a first guide member (16) coupled with a rear surface of the main body (6C), the first guide member (16) having a length protruding by a first predetermined distance, wherein the first guide member (16) comprises: a pair of first connection members (20, 21) coupled with the rear surface of the main body (6C); and a first supporting member (16a; Fig. 16-22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yokote, Perkins, and Engle with Okura; because it allows mounting a screen to the projector.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, Engle and Okura consequently results in one end and the other end of the first support member (16a of Okura) are respectively connected with the pair of first connection members (20, 21 of Okura).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, Engle and Okura consequently results in the first supporting member (16a of Okura) comprises a plane that is perpendicular to a horizontal surface on which the main body (6C) is provided (Fig. 16-22 of Okura).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yokota, Perkins, Engle and Okura consequently results in a second guide member (17, 18, 19 and 23, 24, 25 of Okura) coupled with a lower surface of the main body (6C of Okura), the second guide member (17/18/19 and 23, 24, 25 of Okura) having a length protruding to a rear surface of the main body (6C of Okura) by a second predetermined distance (Fig. 16-22 of Okura), wherein the second guide member (17, 18, 19 and 23, 24, 25 of Okura) comprises: a pair of second connection members (17, 18, 19 of Okura) coupled with the lower surface of the main body (6C of Okura); and a second supporting member (23, 24, 25 of Okura).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, Engle and Okura consequently results in one end and the other end of the second supporting member (23, 24, 25 of Okura) are respectively connected with the pair of second connection members (17, 18, 19 of Okura).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, Engle and Okura consequently results in the second supporting member (23, 24, 25 of Okura) adjoins a wall on the rear surface of the main body (6C; Fig. 22 of Okura).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yokote, Perkins, Engle and Okura consequently results in the second supporting member (23, 24, 25 of Okura) comprises a plane that is perpendicular to a horizontal surface on which the main body (6C of Okura) is provided (Fig. 22 of Okura).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment/s of claims 1 and 20.
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