Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/595,451

ADJUSTING MODULE AND PROJECTION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 05, 2024
Examiner
HOWARD, RYAN D
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Coretronic Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 997 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1036
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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 (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 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 110531572 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner. Regarding claims 1 and 11, Xu teaches a projection device (210, 220, 230, figure 1, see section 0022), comprising an illumination system (210, figure 1), a light valve (220, figure 1), and a projection lens (230, figure 1), wherein The illumination system is configured to provide an illumination beam (via 214a-214b, figure 2, section 0023), and the illumination system comprises a light source module (214a, 214b, figure 2) and an adjusting module (100, figure 2, section 0023), wherein The light source module is configured to provide the light beam (section 0024), and The adjusting module is disposed on a transmission path of the light beam to guide the light beam (212, figure 2), and the adjusting module comprises an optical element (212, figure 2), a first frame (120, 130, figure 2), a second frame (110, figure 2), a plurality of elastic members (E3, E4, E5, E6, figure 2), and a first adjuster (170, 180, figure 2); wherein The optical element is disposed in the first frame (212, 120, figure 2); The first frame is disposed in the second frame (120, 130 are disposed in 110, figure 2), the second frame surrounds at least a portion of the first frame, the first frame comprises a first wedge structure (134, figure 2); The plurality of elastic members are connected between the first frame and the second frame (section 0032 and section 0037); and The first adjuster is disposed on the second frame and abuts against the first wedge structure of the first frame (section 0035), wherein the first adjuster is configured to move in a first direction (z-axis direction), the first adjuster is configured to move the first frame in a second direction (x-axis direction) opposite to the second frame, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (section 0035). Regarding claim 3 and 13, Xu teaches the first wedge structure has a first inclined plane (134, figure 3) and the first inclined plane is inclined to the first direction and the second direction (inclined with respect to both x and z direction but not y in figure 3). Regarding claim 4 and 14, Xu teaches the first adjuster has a first external thread structure, the second frame has a first internal thread structure matching the first external thread structure and the first adjuster is configured to move back and forth on the first direction by rotation (section 0035, the first adjuster is a screw). 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) 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 110531572 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Li et al. (CN 102135710 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner. Regarding claim 5 and 15, Xu does not specify the adjusting module further comprises a base, the second frame comprises a rotation axis extending in the first direction the rotation axis is connected to the base, and the second frame is configured to rotate about the rotation axis. Li teaches the adjusting module further comprises a base (12, figure 2), the second frame (22, figure 2) comprises a rotation axis (242, figure 2) extending in the first direction, the rotation axis is connected to the base (via 142, 14, figure 2), and the second frame is configured to rotate about the rotation axis (paragraph 0024). 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 Xu to be rotatable about the first axis as taught in Li in order to better align the beam combining element to the light sources. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Xu does not teach the adjusting module further comprises a second adjuster (40, figure 1) disposed on the base (via 18) the second frame comprises a second wedge structure (26, figure 3), the second adjuster abuts against the second wedge structure (see figure 3, element 46 and 26), the second adjuster is configured to move in the first direction (vertically), and the second adjuster is configured to rotate the second frame around the rotation axis (paragraph 0024, the rotation axis is also the vertical axis and is in the first direction). 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 Xu to be rotatable about the first axis as taught in Li in order to better align the beam combining element to the light sources. Regarding claim 7 and 17, Xu does not teach the second wedge structure has a second inclined plane, and the second inclined plane is inclined to the first direction and a third direction and the third direction is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (see 26, figure 2, arranged in the same manner as the inclined surface shown as the second wedge structure in this application, namely orthogonal to the plane of the optical element and sloping in across the vertical and direction and the direction out of the plane of the page). 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 Xu to be rotatable about the first axis as taught in Li in order to better align the beam combining element to the light sources. Regarding claim 8 and 18, Xu teaches two inclined surfaces wherein the plane of the incline of each surface shows a skewed configuration (124 and 134, figure 2). Regarding claim 10 and 20, Xu does not teach the second adjuster has a second external thread structure, the base has a second internal thread structure matching the second external thread structure, and the second adjuster is configured to move back and forth on the first direction by rotation. Li teaches the second adjuster has a second external thread structure, the base has a second internal thread structure matching the second external thread structure, and the second adjuster is configured to move back and forth on the first direction by rotations (paragraph 0025). 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 Xu to be rotatable about the first axis as taught in Li in order to better align the beam combining element to the light sources. Claim(s) 2, 9, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 110531572 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Li et al. (CN 102135710 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2021/0247670 A1). Regarding claims 2 and 12, Xu in view of Li does not teach a plurality of limiting posts extend toward the second frame in the second direction, the second frame comprises a plurality of limiting slots, the plurality of limiting posts are located in the plurality of limiting slots, and the plurality of limiting posts are configured to move in the second direction opposite to the plurality of limiting slots. Chen teaches a plurality of limiting posts (150, figure 3) extend toward the second frame in the second direction, the second frame comprises a plurality of limiting slots (154, 155, figure 3), the plurality of limiting posts are located in the plurality of limiting slots, and the plurality of limiting posts are configured to move in the second direction opposite to the plurality of limiting slots. 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 Xu in view of Li to use posts of Chen in order better secure the optical element during adjustment to prevent unwanted movement (paragraph 0003). Regarding claims 9 and 19, Xu in view of Li does not teach the base comprises a metal dome abutting against the second frame, the second frame has a first side and a second side opposing each other, the second adjuster abuts against the first side, and the metal dome abuts against the second side. Chen teaches the base comprises a metal dome (170, figure 3) abutting against the second frame, the second frame has a first side and a second side opposing each other, the second adjuster (180, figure 3) abuts against the first side, and the metal dome abuts against the second side (see figure 3, paragraph 0039 for the dome being metal). 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 Xu in view of Li to use the metal ball of Chen in order to reduce the contact area between the positioning member and the pivot shafts (paragraph 0039) to reduce unwanted movement. 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 2/26/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 05, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587621
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND IMAGE PROJECTION DEVICE HAVING A LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587620
CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565330
AIRCRAFT BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548980
Single Element Dot Pattern Projector
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547009
EFFICIENT USER-DEFINED SDR-TO-HDR CONVERSION WITH MODEL TEMPLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 997 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month