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 .
Claim Rejections - 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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(s) 1-5, 10-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2014/0092368 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2005/0103477 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches a projection device wherein the projection device comprises a casing (220, figure 2) and a light source module (240A, figure 2; paragraph 0040035), a light valve module (248a, figure 2, paragraph 0039), a projection lens (248b, paragraph 0039), a heat dissipation module (282, 246b, 246c, 246a, 244a, 244b, 244c, figure 2; paragraph 0037 and 0039) and a fan disposed in the casing (282, figure 2; paragraph 0033), wherein
The light source module is configured to provide an illumination beam (paragraph 0036);
The light valve module is disposed on a transmission path of the illumination beam and configured to convert the illumination beam into an image beam (paragraph 0039);
A projection lens is disposed on a transmission path of the image beam and configured to project the image beam out of the projection device (paragraph 0039);
The casing has at least one air inlet (227, figure 2) and a first air outlet (226, figure 2) and a second air outlet (225, figure 2);
The heat dissipation module is coupled to the light source module (246b, 246c, 246a, 244a, 244b, 244c, figure 2 are coupled to the light sources, paragraph 0037) and the light valve module (244d, figure 2 and paragraph 0039).
Dai does not specify that the fan has a first air exhaust and a second air exhaust, and the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust are respectively positioned at positions adjacent to the first air outlet and the second air outlet of the casing.
Kim teaches a casing (30, figure 1), with a fan (35, 38, figure 1) wherein the fan has a first air exhaust (36e, figure 2a) and a second air exhaust (36e’, figure 2a; paragraphs 0045), and the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust are respectively disposed at positions adjacent to a first air outlet (31, figure 1) and a second air outlet (31’, figure 1) of the casing (30). Kim further teaches that the electronic components to be cooled (62, 64, 52, figure 1) are connected to the heat sinks (40, 40’, figure 1) via heat pipes (50, 60, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Dai to utilize the exhaust fan and ventilation structure of Kim in order to make the projection system more compact while maintaining efficient cooling.
Regarding claim 2, Dai teaches the heat dissipation module comprises a first heat dissipation structure (246a-c, 244a-c, figure 2) and a second heat dissipation structure (244d), wherein the first heat dissipation structure is coupled to the light source module (242a-c; 240A, figure 2) and the second heat dissipation structure is coupled to the light valve module (248a).
Regarding claim 3, Dai in view of Kim does not specify in the embodiment relied upon that the at least one air inlet comprise a first air inlet and a second air inlet, wherein the firs heat dissipation structure is disposed at a position adjacent to the first air inlet of the casing and the second heat dissipation structure is disposed at a position adjacent to the second air inlet of the casing.
Dai teaches in an alternative embodiment that the at least one air inlet comprise a first air inlet (427, figure 5) and a second air inlet (428, figure 5), wherein the first heat dissipation structure (444b and 444a, figure 4) is disposed at a position adjacent to the first air inlet of the casing and the second heat dissipation structure (444d, figure 5) is disposed at a position adjacent to the second air inlet of the casing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the primary embodiment of Dai in view of Kim with the alternative air inlet arrangement in Dai in order to improve air flow and improve heat dissipation in the projection system (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Dai in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the areas of the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust are different. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Dai in view of Kim to make the area of the first and second exhaust different, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the area of one of the first and second exhausts to be different than the other one in order to accommodate different heat dissipation requirements in the projection system for the different components.
Regarding claim 5, Dai in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the areas of the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust are the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Dai in view of Kim to make the area of the first and second exhaust the same, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the area of one of the first and second exhausts to be the same as the other one in order to accommodate different heat dissipation requirements in the projection system for the different components.
Regarding claim 10, Dai further teaches the at least one air inlet comprises a first air inlet and a second air inlet (the air inlet 227, figure 2 can be divided into as many different areas as desired arbitrarily).
Dai in view of Kim therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the areas of the first air inlet and the second air inlet are greater than ears of the first air outlet and the second air outlet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the areas of the air intake greater than the areas of the air outlets, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the area of the air inlets greater than the air outlets in order to allow enough cross sectional area for dust filtration.
Regarding claim 11, Dai teaches the casing comprises a side cover portion (220, figure 2) connected between something not shown, the at least one air inlet comprises a first air inlet and a second air inlet (227 can be divided into an arbitrary number of inlets), the first air inlet and the first air outlet, the second air inlet and the second air outlet are respectively located on the side cover portion (paragraph 0032), the side cover portion comprises a front cover (221, figure 2) and a rear cover (223, figure 2) parallel to each other and a left cover and a right cover parallel to each other (222, 224, figure 2), and a range of an orthographic projection of the first air exhaust (262 which has an orthographic projection overlapping 225, figure 2) at the front cover is at least partially overlapped with a range of orthographic projections of the first air inlet and the first air outlet at the front cover (see orthographic projection of 227 which overlaps areas of 225 and 262 toward the right half of 227).
Dai does not specifically teach that the casing comprises an upper cover portion and a lower cover portion.
Kim teaches an upper cover portion and a lower cover portion connected by sidewalls (see 3, figure 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai to use the upper and lower covers of Kim in order to better prevent damage to the optical components within the casing.
Regarding claim 12, Dai in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the range of an orthographic projection of the second air exhaust at the left cover is at least partially overlapped with a range of orthographic projections of the second air inlet and the second air outlet at the left cover. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the range of an orthographic projection of the second air exhaust at the left cover is at least partially overlapped with a range of orthographic projections of the second air inlet and the second air outlet at the left cover, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to make arrange exhaust, and the second air inlets and outlets overlapping in orthographic projections in order to arrange the airflow efficiently over the projection components.
Regarding claim 13, Dai in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that in the direction of gravity the thickness of the fan is less than the thickness of the heat dissipation module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to make the thickness of the fan less than the thickness of the heat dissipation component, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to make the fan thinner than the heat dissipation module to optimize the airflow so that any airflow generated was always being used to cool the heat dissipation module thus improving heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 15, Dai teaches side cover portions (221-224, figure 2).
Dai does not specify a circuit board, wherein the casing comprises an upper cover portion, a lower cover portion , and a side cover portion connected between the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion, and the circuit board is disposed between the upper cover portion and the fan.
Kim teaches a circuit board (32, figure 1), wherein the casing comprises an upper cover portion, a lower cover portion , and a side cover portion connected between the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion (upper cover, lower cover and the sidewall are part of 3, figure 10), and the circuit board is disposed between the upper cover portion and the fan (see figure 2b, the fan is above components mounted on 32, so it is also above 32, and since upper and lower are not specified with respect to anything the lower part of Kim can be considered the upper part of the claim).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Dai to utilize the exhaust fan and ventilation structure of Kim in order to make the projection system more compact while maintaining efficient cooling.
Regarding claim 17, Dai in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the first air outlet and the second air outlet of the casing is greater than or equal to areas of the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust of the fan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the areas of the first and second outlets greater than or equal to the areas of the first and second air exhausts of the fan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to make the areas of the first and second outlets greater than the areas of the first and second exhausts of the fan in order to ensure cooling air exited the housing efficiently.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2014/0092368 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2005/0103477 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fujiwara (US 8,107,239 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Dai in view of Kim does not specify a pillar and wherein the fan further has a first air intake and a second air intake and the fan is connected to the casing via the pillar.
Fujiwara teaches the pillar (82, figure 17 and 18), wherein the fan further has a first air intake and a second air intake (column 4 lines 55-56) and the fan is connected to the casing (14, figure 18) via the pillar (82, 45, figure 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to use the dual intake fan of Fujiwara to improve airflow and cooling efficiency in the display while keeping the system compact (column 1 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 7, Dai in view of Kim in view of Fujiwara teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the area of the first intake is different from the area of the second intake. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Dai in view of Kim to make the area of the first and second intake different, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim in view of Fujiwara to change the size of one of the intakes in order to direct airflow efficiently throughout the projector components in the housing.
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara further teaches the casing comprises an upper cover portion (14, figure 18), a lower cover portion (13, figure 18) and a side cover portion (7, figure 1) connected between the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion, the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion are disposed in parallel (figure 18, into the plane of the page), the fan comprises a first surface (45, figure 18, upper surface portion) and a second surface (47, figure 18, lower surface portion) respectively corresponding to a parallel to the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion, and the first air intake and the second air intake are respectively located on the first surface and the second surface (column 4 lines 55-56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to use the dual intake fan of Fujiwara to improve airflow and cooling efficiency in the display while keeping the system compact (column 1 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 9, Dai in view of Kim in view of Fujiwara teaches a distance from a first surface to the upper cover portion is a first unspecified distance (see 45, figure 18 in Fujiwara), a distance from the second surface to the lower cover portion is a second unspecified distance (47, figure 18 in Fujiwara). Dai in view of Kim in view of Fujiwara therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the ratio of the first distance to the second distance is .8 times to 1.2 times a ratio of an area of the first air intake to an area of the second air intake. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio of the first distance to the second distance 0.8 to 1.2 times the ratio of the area of the first air intake to an area of the second air intake, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim in view of Fujiwara to teach the ratio claimed in order to ensure even cooling.
Regarding claim 16, Dai in view of Kim does not teach the fan also has a first air intake, the casing comprises an upper cover portion, a lower cover portion and a side cover portion connected between the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion, the first air intake faces the upper cover portion and there is a distance between the first air intake and the upper cover portion.
Fujiwara teaches the fan also has a first air intake (column 4 lines 55-56), the casing comprises an upper cover portion (14, figure 18), a lower cover portion (13, figure 18) and a side cover portion (7, figure 1) connected between the upper cover portion and the lower cover portion, the first air intake faces the upper cover portion and there is a distance between the first air intake and the upper cover portion (see figure 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to use the dual intake fan of Fujiwara to improve airflow and cooling efficiency in the display while keeping the system compact (column 1 lines 30-36).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (US 2014/0092368 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 2005/0103477 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2008/0198336 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dai in view of Kim does not specify a partition, wherein the fan has at least one air intake, the partition is disposed between the fan and the casing, and the partition is configured to block an air exhaust area and an air intake area of the fan, wherein the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust are located at the air exhaust area and the at least one air intake is located at the air intake area.
Chen teaches a partition (700, 800, figure 1), wherein the fan has at least one air intake (420b, figure 1), the partition is disposed between the fan and the casing see figure 1, element 114 and 400), and the partition is configured to block an air exhaust area and an air intake area of the fan, wherein the first air exhaust and the second air exhaust (410, figure 1) are located at the air exhaust area and the at least one air intake is located at the air intake area (420b, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Dai in view of Kim to use the partitioning system of Chen in order to prevent hot exhaust air from recirculating into the intake stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 12/10/2025