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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Specification
The title of the invention, “ELECTRONIC APPARATUS,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Objection/s to the Claim/s
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102()()/()() as being anticipated by Takezawa (US 20040032569 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takezawa teaches an electronic apparatus (Fig. 1-26) comprising: a first case (810B); a second case (600B) provided in such a manner that an internal part is disposed between the first case (810B) and the second case (600B); and a cover (820B) configured to cover an opposite side of the second case (600B) to a side facing the internal part, wherein a heat conductivity of the second case (600B) is higher than a heat conductivity of the cover (820B; [0153], [0178]).
Regarding claim 3, Takezawa further teaches the internal part comprises a heat generating member (360), and wherein the second case (600B) comprises a protruding area (601) provided in such a manner as to protrude towards the heat generating member (360; [0113]).
Regarding claim 4, Takezawa further teaches a heat conductive member interposed between the heat generating member (360) and the protruding area (601; [0113]).
Regarding claim 5, Takezawa further teaches the protruding area (601) comprises multiple protruding portions (610), each of which is arranged in a rib-like manner.
Regarding claim 6, Takezawa further teaches a material of the second case (600B) is a magnesium alloy ([0153], [0174], [0190]).
Regarding claim 7, Takezawa further teaches the second case (600B) comprises a lens barrel support area (602) which is configured to support a lower side of the end portion of the lens barrel (380; Fig. 6, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25).
Regarding claim 8, Takezawa further teaches a material of the cover (820B) is a mixed resin ([0178]).
Regarding claim 9, Takezawa further teaches the heat generating member (360) is disposed at a position separated from a lens barrel (380) on the second case (600B; Fig. 6, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25).
Regarding claim 10, Takezawa further teaches wherein the cover (820B) is provided in such a manner as to be brought into abutment with a substantially whole surface of the opposite side of the second case (600B; Fig. 6, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25).
Regarding claim 11, Takezawa further teaches wherein the internal part comprises a lens barrel (380), wherein the electronic apparatus is a projector in which projected light is emitted from a projection port of the lens barrel (380), and wherein the second case (600B) comprises a support area provided in such a manner as to support the projection port of the lens barrel (380; Fig. 6, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takezawa
Regarding claim 2, Takezawa further teaches wherein the second case (600B) and the cover (820B) are rectangular, wherein the second case (600B) has an engagement area (at 826, 827, 829 and more), and wherein the cover (820B) has an engagement target area (at 826, 827, 829 and more) in such a manner as to be brought into engagement with the engagement area (at 826, 827, 829 and more; [0100], [0107], [0194]).
Takezawa does not explicitly teach the engagement area and the engagement target area provided in at least one of four corners.
Having the engagement area and the engagement target area provided in at least one of four corners 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).
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20230121040 A1, US 20180292738 A1, US 20110001938 A1, US 20080013056 A1, US 20070103647 A1, and US 20060077353 A1, disclose the structure of the housing of a projector where the structure has an inner frame to support the optical components.
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