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 06/11/2026 amended claim 1 and cancelled claims 3 and 5. Claims 1, 2 and 7-11 are pending and rejected.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang (CN 112505995 A) in view of Otsuki (US 20220137498 A1).
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 (Fig. 4-7) that houses the optical system (refractive portion of 200) and at least part of the reflector (201), and a reflector cooling mechanism (400, 401-403); wherein the enclosure has a hermetically sealed structure (100, 300, 600) that seals a housing space that houses the optical system and the reflector, with at least one slit (K) formed in the hermetically sealed structure (see highlighted portions of the supplied translation of Pang on p. 10, 11, and 12; Fig. 4-7).
Pang does not explicitly teach the reflector (201) includes a base having a first surface on which the image light is incident and a second surface opposite from the first surface, a reflection layer provided at the first surface of the base, and a heat dissipation member provided at the second surface of the base and including a protrusion protruding from the second surface and the heat dissipation member includes a heat pipe as the protrusion, and at least part of the heat pipe is exposed to a space outside the enclosure via the enclosure at least one slit, and the heat pipe includes heat dissipation fins exposed outside the housing, and extending between the second surface and the housing.
Otsuki teaches a reflector (363) including a base (body of 363) having a first surface on which the image light is incident and a second surface opposite from the first surface, a reflection layer (3631) provided at the first surface of the base, and a heat dissipation member (40, 65) provided at the second surface of the base and including a protrusion protruding from the second surface (Fig. 3-7); and the heat dissipation member (40, 65) includes a heat pipe as the protrusion, and at least part of the heat pipe is exposed to a space outside the enclosure via the enclosure at least one slit (372; [0104], [0105]), and the heat pipe ([0104], [0105]) includes heat dissipation fins (401, 651) exposed outside the housing (37, Fig. 3-7), and extending between the second surface and the housing (37; [0104], [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Pang with Otsuki; because it allows more efficient heat transfer to heat dissipation member.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pang and Otsuki consequently results in an illuminance distribution formed by the image light at the reflection layer has a first region where the illuminance is higher than a predetermined value, and the heat dissipation member is provided at the second surface at least at a second region thereof corresponding to the first region (Fig. 3-7 of Pang and Fig. 3-7 of Otsuki).
Regarding claim 8, Pang further teaches the reflection layer has a concave shape (Fig. 3-7).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pang and Otsuki consequently results in the heat dissipation member also serves as a cover member that blocks at least part of an opening provided in the enclosure (Fig. 3-7 of Otsuki).
Regarding claim 10, 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 11, Pang further teaches a projector (Fig. 9) 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang in view of Otsuki and in further view of Taylor (US 5864434 A).
Regarding claim 7, neither Pang nor Otsuki teaches the base being made of a plastic material.
Taylor teaches the base (11) being made of a plastic material (col. 3 line 59 – col. 4 line 35).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Pang and Otsuki with Taylor; because it allows producing a stable mirror for high heat intensity operating environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant/s argue,
The Final Office Action (beginning Page 6) relies on Pang's seal 600, an annular
elastic member sandwiched between a lens mount 100 and a metal side cover 300 to seal the housing halves. It does not interface with a heat pipe.
Otsuki teaches a first seal member 39, but it is explicitly disposed between the rear surface 3632 of the reflection mirror 363 and the inner surface of the outer wall section 371. Otsuki's heat sink 40 floats freely through the opening 372. Otsuki relies on a dynamic, spring-urged mechanism (urging member 38) that pushes the mirror against a reference protrusion 377, using the seal 39 as part of that sandwich. Filling the gap between the heat sink and the slit with a sealing member (if combining Otsuki with Pang) would jam Otsuki's spring-loaded alignment mechanism, destroying its principle of operation. (Remarks; p. 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Otsuki and Pang “would jam Otsuki's spring-loaded alignment mechanism, destroying its principle of operation,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights