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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 08/10/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the abstract and the claims. There was not any change being made to the drawings and the specification.
A) Regarding the abstract, applicant has submitted an amended abstract in a separated sheet; and
B) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1 and 7.
Response to Arguments
3. The amendments to the abstract and the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/10/2026 and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-9, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are still claims 1-12 in which claims 1-8 and 10-12 are examined in the present office action, and claim 9 has been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
B) Regarding the objection to the abstract set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the abstract as provided in the amendment of 08/10/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 6, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objection to the abstract set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the Claim Interpretation set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, because applicant has not amended the claim(s) and/or provided any argument to overcome the Claim Interpretation, thus the claim Interpretation set forth in the mentioned office action is repeated in the present office action.
D) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/10/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 6, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the mentioned office action.
E) Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al (Korean reference No. 10-2006-0122415) in view of Kusama et al (US Patent No. 11,328,631) set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/10/2026 are not sufficient to over the mentioned rejection to the claims, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Thus, claims 1-8 and 10-12 are still rejected by the same arts as provided in the present office action.
E1) Applicant’s argued that the combined arts provided by Je et al and Kusama et al does not disclose the feature that “the notch being recessed from the inner surface toward a direction away from the hollow portion” as recited in present claims 1 and 7, see amendment in page 6. The examiner respectfully disagree with applicant’s viewpoint and respectfully invited the applicant to review the arts and the rejection to the claims set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026.
In particular, Je et al in the combined arts provided by Je et al and Kusama et al discloses
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).
E2) Applicant’s argued that the recess formed/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) as provided by Je et al is “not configured for reducing the reflection area. In other words, … claimed invention”, see amendment in page 8. While applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the claims, in particular, claims 1 and 7, with claimed language as being recited/provided. Applicant should note that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the recess is configured for reducing the reflection area) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
E3) Applicant’s argued that the shielding part (151b) of Je et al should be considered as a main body as that of the present claimed invention, not the connection 151c thus the recess of Je et al is not disposed in the light shielding part 151b, see amendment in pages 8-9. The examiner respectfully disagree with applicant’s view for the following reason(s).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant is respectfully invited the applicant to review the claim(s) with claimed language as being recited/provided. In particular, the shield as claimed comprises “a frame comprising … the hollow portion” see claim 1 on lines 6-20 or claim 7 on lines 9-14. With the claimed language of the shield as claimed then the section having parts (151b, 151c) form the main body of the frame which main body (151b, 151c) defined/surrounded the hollow portion (151a). It is noted that the main body (151b, 151c) of the frame has 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), i.e., the notch expands from the inner surface defines/corresponds to the boundary surface of the hollow portion (151a) to the inner wall of the part/section (151c).
E4) Thus, the features regarding to the shield as claimed in each of claims 1 and 7 is read from the art of Je et al. The art of Kusama et al is used as a secondary reference in combination with the primary reference, i.e., Je et al, for the purpose of showing to one skilled in the art that the black matt-treated coating/layer has a roughness less than 500 nm is known/used in 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.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 § 103
7. 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.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al (Korean reference No. 10-2006-0122415) in view of Kusama et al (US Patent No. 11,328,631) (both of record).
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
10. The US Patent No. 8,857,088 and the US Publication No. 2013/0232839 each is cited as of interest in that it discloses a frame for supporting a picture wherein the frame comprises a recess projecting into the interior wall of the frame away from an opening/aperture defined by the interior wall of the frame.
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
12. 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