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 .
Status
The filing on 06/08/2026 amended claims 1, 2, 14 and 20. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 14, and 20.
Objection/s to the Claims
The filing on 06/08/2026 appropriately amended claim 2; hence the objection/s to claim 2 made in the last office action are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20130077054 A1) in view of Hirai (US 20060145949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches an electronic unit (Fig. 1-10) comprising: a casing (101) configured to have a horizontal configuration perpendicular relative to vertical gravitational forces acting thereon; a first fan (322 corresponding to 331) disposed close to a first side surface (107) of the casing (101); a second fan (322 corresponding to 333) disposed close to the first side surface (107) of the casing (101), installed adjacent to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) on one side; and a third fan (322 corresponding to 332) disposed close to the first side surface (107) of the casing (101), installed adjacent to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) on the other side.
Lim does not teach a CPU configured to control a revolution speed of the first fan (322 corresponding to 331), the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332).
Hirai teaches a CPU (213/213A) configured to control a revolution speed of each of the plurality of fans (201-204) independently (Fig. 3 and 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lim with Hirai; because it allows correcting circuit error in the drive circuit ([0008] of Hirai).
Neither Lim nor Hirai explicitly teaches controlling revolution speeds of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan such that peaks of frequency components of driving noise generated from each of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan do not coincide with each other.
It is well known in the art at the time of the invention that the peak frequency component of driving noise means resonant vibration frequency of the different parts, including the fan/s, of the projector caused by driving of the fan/s. Each fan inherently has its own resonant vibration frequency, when it rotates; because each fan is attached/fastened to the projector at a different location. In conclusion, peaks of frequency components of driving noise generated from each of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan do not coincide with each other regardless how fast each fan rotates.
Regarding claim 2, Lim further teaches a first cooling target object (211) disposed in such a manner as to correspond to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331); a second cooling target object (213) disposed in such a manner as to correspond to the second fan (322 corresponding to 333); a third cooling target object (212) disposed in such a manner as to correspond to the third fan (322 corresponding to 332);
Regarding claim 3, Lim further teaches the second cooling target object (213) disposed close to the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) being disposed away from the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) over a distance that is greater than a distance between the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) and the first cooling target object (211) disposed close to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331).
Regarding claim 4, neither Lim nor Hirai teaches the third cooling target object (212) disposed close to the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) being disposed away from the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) over a distance that is greater than a distance between the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) and the first cooling target object (211) disposed close to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331).
Having the third cooling target object (212) disposed close to the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) being disposed away from the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) over a distance that is greater than a distance between the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) and the first cooling target object (211) disposed close to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) requires only rearrangement of parts.
Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Lim further teaches the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) and the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) are axial-flow fans and parallel to the first side surface (107) so as to blow air towards the first side surface (107) of the casing (101; Fig. 1-8).
Regarding claim 6, Lim further teaches the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) and the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) have substantially the same shape and but does not teach the fans being substantially the same size.
Changing the size of the fans does not change the operation of the projector in anyway; hence it is prima facie obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 7, neither Lim nor Hirai teaches a thickness of the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) is thinner than a thickness of the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332), or a surface area of the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) is smaller than a surface area of the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332).
Changing the size of the fans, i.e., thickness or surface area, does not change the operation of the projector in anyway; hence it is prima facie obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 8, Lim further teaches wherein the casing (101) has: an exhaust port (108) in the first side surface (107); an air intake port (106) in the second side surface (105) opposite to the first side surface (107; Fig. 1-3); and a plurality of the first cooling target objects (211, 140, 150) disposed in series in such a manner as to correspond to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) between the air intake port (106) and the first fan (322 corresponding to 331), and wherein in the plurality of the first cooling target objects (211, 140, 150), the first cooling target object (140, 150) disposed closer to the air intake port (106) has a heat value smaller than a heat value of the first cooling target object (211) disposed closer to the exhaust port (108). (Note: it is well known in the art that circuit boards in projector do not generate as much heat as the light sources, see [0007] of US 20050248727 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lim further teaches a first air intake port (first hole of 106) disposed in such a manner as to correspond to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) and formed in a second side surface (105) opposite to the first side surface (107); a second air intake port (second hole of 106) disposed in such a manner as to correspond to the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and formed in the second side surface (105); wherein fins (332b), a heat pipe (332a) and a base plate (332c) are operatively connected to form a heat sink for a light source (210) mounted to the base plate (332c), the base plate (332c) and light source (210) are arranged to be cooled by air flow in the path from the second air intake port (second hole of 106) to the second fan (322 corresponding to 333), and the base plate (332c) is arranged to extend perpendicular to a direction of the air flow in the path from the second air intake port (second hole of 106) to the second fan (322 corresponding to 333; Fig. 1-7).
Regarding claim 10, Lim further teaches third heat sink for cooling a display device (220; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lim and Hirai consequently results in the CPU controls the revolution speed of the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) to be different from the revolution speed of the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) during operation.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lim and Hirai consequently results in the CPU controls the revolution speed of the first fan (322 corresponding to 331), the revolution speed of the second fan (322 corresponding to 333), the revolution speed of the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) to be different from each other during operation.
Regarding claim 14, Lim teaches a projector (10) comprising: a casing (101) having a horizontal configuration perpendicular relative to vertical gravitational forces acting thereon; a light source unit (210); a display device (220) configured to generate image light from light source light emitted from the light source unit (210); a projection optical system (230) configured to project the image light emitted from the display device (220) on to a screen (10); a first fan (322 corresponding to 331) disposed close to a first side surface (107) of the casing (101); a second fan (322 corresponding to 333) disposed close to the first side surface (107) of the casing (101), installed adjacent to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) on one side; a third fan (322 corresponding to 332) disposed close to the first side surface (107) of the casing (101), installed adjacent to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) on the other side.
Lim does not teach a CPU configured to control a revolution speed of the first fan (322 corresponding to 331), the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332).
Hirai teaches a CPU (213/213A) configured to control a revolution speed of each of the plurality of fans (201-204) independently (Fig. 3 and 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lim with Hirai; because it allows correcting circuit error in the drive circuit ([0008] of Hirai).
Neither Lim nor Hirai explicitly teaches controlling revolution speeds of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan such that peaks of frequency components of driving noise generated from each of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan do not coincide with each other.
It is well known in the art at the time of the invention that the peak frequency component of driving noise means resonant vibration frequency of the different parts, including the fan/s, of the projector caused by driving of the fan/s. Each fan inherently has its own resonant vibration frequency, when it rotates; because each fan is attached/fastened to the projector at a different location. In conclusion, peaks of frequency components of driving noise generated from each of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan do not coincide with each other regardless how fast each fan rotates.
Regarding claim 15, Lim further teaches the light source unit (210) and the display device (220) and the projection optical system (230) are mounted at a front portion or a central portion in the front-rear direction of the projector (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Lim further teaches circuit boards (140, 150) mounted at a rear portion in the front-rear direction of the projector (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Lim further teaches a first partition portion (vertical wall 313 and/or 340) configured to divide a portion inside the projector into a front portion and a rear portion, and a second partition portion (horizontal wall of 313 and/or 340) configured to divide a portion inside the projector which lies behind the first partition portion (vertical wall 313 and/or 340) into an upper portion and a lower portion (Fig. 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 18, Lim further teaches a first circuit board (140) disposed at the rear of the second partition portion (horizontal wall of 313 and/or 340) with plate surfaces oriented in the front-rear direction (Fig. 4); a second circuit board (150) disposed above the first partition portion (vertical wall 313 and/or 340) and the second partition portion (horizontal wall of 313 and/or 340) and the first circuit board (140); a third circuit board (120/130) disposed on a lower surface side of the second partition portion (horizontal wall of 313 and/or 340).
Regarding claim 19, Lim further teaches a flow path (AFD) corresponding to the third fan (322 corresponding to 332) provided in such a manner as to extend in the left-right direction while being substantially surrounded on four sides by the first circuit board (140) and the second circuit board (150) and the first partition portion (vertical wall 313 and/or 340) and the second partition portion (horizontal wall of 313 and/or 340) is formed at the rear of the light source unit (210; Fig. 3, 4, and 8).
Regarding claim 20, Lim teaches a cooling control method for an electronic unit (10), the electronic unit (10) comprising: a casing (101) having a horizontal configuration perpendicular relative to vertical gravitational forces acting thereon; a first fan (322 corresponding to 331) disposed close to a first side surface (107) of the casing (101); a second fan (322 corresponding to 333) disposed close to the first side surface (107) of the casing (101), installed adjacent to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) on one side; a third fan (322 corresponding to 332) disposed close to the first side surface (107) of the casing (101), installed adjacent to the first fan (322 corresponding to 331) on the other side.
Lim does not teach a CPU configured to control a revolution speed of the first fan (322 corresponding to 331), the second fan (322 corresponding to 333) and the third fan (322 corresponding to 332).
Hirai teaches a CPU (213/213A) configured to control a revolution speed of each of the plurality of fans (201-204) independently (Fig. 3 and 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lim with Hirai; because it allows correcting circuit error in the drive circuit ([0008] of Hirai).
Neither Lim nor Hirai explicitly teaches controlling revolution speeds of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan such that peaks of frequency components of driving noise generated from each of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan do not coincide with each other.
It is well known in the art at the time of the invention that the peak frequency component of driving noise means resonant vibration frequency of the different parts, including the fan/s, of the projector caused by driving of the fan/s. Each fan inherently has its own resonant vibration frequency, when it rotates; because each fan is attached/fastened to the projector at a different location. In conclusion, peaks of frequency components of driving noise generated from each of the first fan, the second fan, and the third fan do not coincide with each other regardless how fast each fan rotates.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20130077054 A1) in view of Hirai (US 20060145949 A1) and in further view of Lin (US 20080043439 A1).
Regarding claim 11, neither Lim nor Hirai teaches a bent portion is formed at an inner edge portion of a plate body of each of the fins.
Lin teaches a bent portion is formed at an inner edge portion of a plate body of each of the fins (Fig. 7-10; [0038], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Lim, Hirai and Lin such that a bent portion is formed at an inner edge portion of a plate body of each of the fins; because it prevents light leakage ([0013], [0014], [0037], [0040], [0042] of Lin) from the projector to improve viewers experience while the projector is operating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment/s of claims 1, 14, and 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights