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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 02/12/2026, applicant has made an election of Invention I in the reply filed on 04/27/2026. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1-8 and 10-12 are examined in the present office action, and claim 9 has been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant should not that the non-elected claim 9 will be rejoined if the linking claim 7 is later found as an allowable claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings contain seven sheets of figures 1-7 were received on 03/12/2024. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it longs more than 150 words and it contains phrase thereof “The present disclosure provides”, see Abstract on line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is “a light-emitting unit” as recited in each of claims 1 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
13. Claims 1-8 and 01-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because each of the features thereof “the roughness” (line 16), “the reflectivity” (lines 16-17) and “the transmittance” (lines 17-18) lacks a proper antecedent basis. Should the term of “the” in each of the mentioned features be changed to --a--?
b) Claim 7 is under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, for the similar reason as set forth in element a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-8 and 10-12, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al (Korean reference No. 10-2006-0122415, submitted by applicant) in view of Kusama et al (US Patent No. 11,328,631).
Je et al discloses a projection display device.
a) Regarding present claim 7, the projection display device (100) as described in pages 3-6 and shown in figs. 1-6 comprises the following features:
a1) a digital micromirror device (111) comprises a substrate (111b) and a plurality of micro mirrors (111a) wherein the micro mirrors (111a) form a first area on the substrate and a second area being formed on the substrate wherein the micro mirrors are not disposed/presented, see pages 4-5 and figs. 1, 3-4 and 6;
a2) a light-emitting unit (130) configured to emit an incident light to the digital micromirror device (111) wherein the micro mirrors in the first area reflect the incident light to project image, see pages 4-5 and fig. 5;
a3) an optical shielding element (151) disposed on the digital micromirror device (111) wherein the shield comprises a frame having a hollow portion (151a) and a main body (151b, 151c) surrounding the hollow portion (151a). It is noted that the frame having a L-shaped configuration which comprises a first outer/exterior surface, a second surface opposite the first outer/exterior surface, an inner surface connected the first and second surfaces which inner surface defines/corresponds to the boundary surface of the hollow portion (151a), and a notch, i.e., the recess defined by the interior surfaces of the sections (151b and 151c) of the frame (151) wherein the notch faces toward a direction away from the hollow portion (151a). It is also noted that the second surface of the frame (111b) is attached or in contact to the digital micromirror device (111), see fig. 6.
a4) the outer/exterior surface of the shielding element has a matt-treated coating/layer, see pages 5-6.
The only feature missing from the shielding element (151) provided by Je et al is that Je et al does not positively disclose that the black matt-treated coating/layer has a roughness less than 500 nm. However, an optical element having a plurality of layer wherein the surface of the outer protective layer is a matt-treated coating/layer having a roughness less than 500 nm is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical element provided by Kusama et al.
In particular, Kusama et al discloses a display device (50) having a plurality of layers (23) and teaches that the outer surface of the layer (23h), i.e., the outer layer used to protect the display, is a matt-treated layer with a roughness in the range of (50 nm, 100nm), see column 13, lines 62-65. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shielding element provided by Je et al by making the roughness of the matt-treated layer on the exterior surface of the frame (151) with a level less than 500 nm as suggested by Kusama et al for the purpose of controlling the light distribution of incident light reflected/absorbed by the shielding element.
Regarding the features regarding the reflectivity and the transmittance of the coating layer as recited in the claim on lines 21-22, such features are met/satisfied based on the same structure of the shielding element with a matt-treated layer on the exterior surface of the frame (151b, 151c) which matt-treated layer has a roughness less than 500 nm in the combined product provided by Je et al and Kusama et al.
b) Regarding present claim 1, the method steps are implicitly met by the structure of the combined product resulted from the projection display device provided by Je et al and Kusama et al.
c) Regarding present claims 2 and 8, the matter-treated layer as disclosed by Je et al is a black coating layer, see page 5 of the Je et al art.
d) Regarding present claims 3-4 and 10-11, the frame (151) provided by Je et al is made of SUS, Cu or the like, see Je et al in page 5. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to utilize any suitable metal material including aluminum to make the frame of the shielding element to meet a particular design.
e) Regarding present claims 5 and 12, the notch, a notch, i.e., the recess defined by the interior surfaces of the sections (151b and 151c) wherein the notch faces toward a direction away from the hollow portion (151a) is in the form of a sectoral cross-section notch/recess.
f) Regarding present claim 6, the frame (151) as provided by Je et al which frame (151b) as shown in figs. 1 and 3-4 comprises lateral first, second, third and fourth plates surround the hollow portion (151a) wherein the first plate, i.e., the left side plate, and the second plate, i.e., the right side plate, disposed opposite the first place with respect to the hollow portion and the third plate, i.e., the upper/top side plate, and the fourth plate, i.e., the lower/bottom plate, disposed opposite the third place with respect to the hollow portion. It is noted that the ends of each of the third and fourth plates are connected to the first and second plates.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The US Patent No. 10,466,389 is cited as of interest in that it discloses an optical shielding element for protecting an optical element wherein the outer surface of the shielding element has a matt-treated layer with roughness less than 50 nm
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights