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 01/13/2026 amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 6. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are pending and rejected.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 01/13/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang (CN 112505995 A) in view of Taylor (US 5864434 A).
Regarding claim 1, Pang teaches a projection optical apparatus (000) comprising: an optical system (refractive portion of 200) that image light enters; a reflector (201) that reflects the image light that exits out of the optical system (refractive portion of 200); and an enclosure (100, 300, 500, 600) that houses the optical system (refractive portion of 200) and the reflector (201), which has a body/base having an light incident surface, i.e., a first surface, and a back surface, i.e,. a second surface, opposite from the first surface. The incident surface reflects incident light.
Pang does not explicitly teach a reflection layer provided at the first surface of the base, and a heat conductive layer provided at the second surface of the base, and the heat conductive layer has heat conductivity higher than heat conductivity of the base.
Taylor teaches a reflector (10) including a base (11) having a first surface (12) on which the image light is incident and a second surface (13) opposite from the first surface (12), a reflection layer (14) provided at the first surface (12) of the base (11), and a heat conductive layer (16) provided at the second surface (13) of the base (11), and the heat conductive layer (16) has heat conductivity higher than heat conductivity of the base (11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Pang with Taylor; because it allows producing a stable mirror for high heat intensity operating environment.
Neither Pang nor Taylor teaches the surface roughness of the heat conductive layer (16) is greater than surface roughness of the reflection layer (14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the surface roughness of the heat conductive layer (16) is greater than surface roughness of the reflection layer (14); because the reflection layer (14) is specularly reflective, i.e., mirror surface.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pang and Taylor consequently results in an illuminance distribution formed by the image light at the reflection layer (14) has a first region where the illuminance is higher than a predetermined value, and the heat conductive layer (16) is provided at the second surface (13) at least at a second region thereof corresponding to the first region.
Regarding claim 3, Pang further teaches the enclosure (100, 300, 500, 600) has a hermetically sealed structure (see highlighted portions of the supplied translation of Pang) that seals a housing space that houses the optical system (refractive portion of 200) and the reflector (201).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pang and Taylor consequently results in the base (11) is made of a plastic material (col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 35 of Taylor).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pang and Taylor consequently results in wherein the reflection layer (14) and the heat conductive layer (16) are each made of a metal material (col. 3 line 42 – col 4 line 15 of Taylor) but Taylor does not explicitly teach the heat conductive layer (16) is thicker than the reflection layer (14).
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 that the heat conductive layer (16) is thicker than the reflection layer (14). Furthermore, the heat conductive layer (16) is either thicker or thinner than the reflection layer (14). (Having the heat conductive layer (16) and the reflection layer (14) being equally thick is practically impossible.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to try having the heat conductive layer (16) is thicker than the reflection layer (14).
Regarding claim 7, pang further teaches the reflection layer (14) has a concave shape (Fig. 3-7).
Regarding claim 8, Pang further teaches the image light that exits via a reduction-side conjugate plane enters the optical system (refractive portion of 200), and the reflector (201) reflects and projects the image light into an enlargement-side conjugate plane (Fig. 9; see highlighted portions of the supplied translation of Pang).
Regarding claim 9, Pang further teaches a projector comprising: a light source apparatus that outputs light; a light modulator that modulates the light from the light source apparatus; and the projection optical apparatus (000) according to claim 1 that projects modulated image light from the light modulator (Fig. 9; see highlighted portions of the supplied translation of Pang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant/s argue,
The subject Office Action (page 5) expressly admitted that "neither Pang nor Taylor teaches the surface roughness of the heat conductive layer (16) is greater than surface roughness of the reflection layer (14)." However, the Office Action otherwise asserted that "It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the surface roughness of the heat conductive layer (16) is greater than surface roughness of the reflection layer (14); because the reflection layer (14) is specularly reflective." The claimed roughness of claim 1 is not an inherent result of specularity, but an intentional, functional design choice unique to the Applicant's specific technical problem.
While Applicant's reflection layer (621) must admittedly be smooth to ensure high- quality, specular reflection for a projected image, such requirement only dictates the smoothness of the front surface. It does not disclose nor suggest the subsequent intentional design choice to make the back surface significantly rougher. Claim 1 specifies that the reflector has a base, a reflection layer, and a heat conductive layer. The base has a first surface on which the image light is incident and a second surface opposite from the first surface. The reflection layer is provided at the first surface of the base, while the heat conductive layer provided at the second surface of the base (which is opposite the first, reflection layer surface).
Therefore, the asserted but unsupported obviousness does not disclose nor suggest the subsequent intentional design choice to make the back surface significantly rougher, and the applied references already admittedly do not teach or suggest the claimed features of Claim 1. (Remarks; p. 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that “the claimed roughness of claim 1 is not an inherent result of specularity, but an intentional, functional design choice unique to the Applicant's specific technical problem,” the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Here the reflection layer is a specularly reflective surface which has RA value, roughness rating, less than 400nm. Having RA value being less than 400nm requires polishing which incurs additional expense and time. On the other hand, there is no roughness requirement for the conductive layer. A person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention would not polish the conductive layer without a purpose. Furthermore, Taylor teaches “[t]he rear surface coating 16 may be of less expensive composition and may be applied by less expensive processes than the front mirror coating 14, for economy reasons, so long as it provides substantially lower emissivity than the absence of a back coating.” It is immediately obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that there is no need to have a high cost specularly reflective conductively layer; hence having “the surface roughness of the heat conductive layer (16) [being] greater than surface roughness of the reflection layer (14)” is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882