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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2024 and 09/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Specification
The title of the invention, “PROJECTION DEVICE,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 216956633 U). A translation of CN 216956633 U is referenced in the statement of rejection/s.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a projection device (Fig. 1-7), comprising: an imaging module comprising a display panel (2) and a light-source module (1), wherein the imaging module is configured to provide imaging beams; a freeform-surface reflective mirror (4) disposed on a path of the imaging beams; and a projection lens assembly (5), wherein the imaging beams are transmitted toward the projection lens assembly (5) via the freeform-surface reflective mirror (4), and the imaging beams are emitted by the projection device after passing through the projection lens assembly (5), wherein the projection lens assembly (5) has an optical axis (10), the optical axis (10) comprises a first optical axis (first portion of 10) and a second optical axis (second portion of 10), the second optical axis (second portion of 10) deflects relative to the first optical axis (first portion of 10) at the freeform-surface reflective mirror (4), the first optical axis (first portion of 10) passes through the projection lens assembly (5), the imaging beams emitted by the projection device form an imaging-beam region on a cross-section plane perpendicular to the first optical axis (first portion of 10), the first optical axis (first portion of 10) does not pass through a geometric center of the imaging-beam region (Fig. 6), and the second optical axis (second portion of 10) passes through a geometric center region of the display panel (2), wherein the geometric center region is a region having a distance less than or equal to 40% (eccentric amount is designed to be 50% or 40%-60%) of a minimum width of the display panel (2) from a geometric center of the display panel (2; Fig. 4; p. 5-6).
Regarding claim 2, Chen further teaches the second optical axis (second portion of 10) passes through the geometric center of the display panel (2; Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further teaches the first optical axis (first portion of 10) is tilted by an angle θ1 (6) relative to a base surface (9), and a plane on which the display panel (2) is positioned is tilted by an angle θ2 (8) relative to the base surface (9), and the angle θ1 (6) and the angle θ2 (8) satisfies a conditional expression 0.7<|θ1/θ2|<1.5 (p. 6-7, “the angle value of the first included angle 6 is equal to the angle value of the third included angle 8”).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further teaches the angle θ1 (6) is within a range of 0.5 degrees to 6 degrees (p. 6, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Chen further teaches the angle θ2 (8) is within a range of 0.5 degrees to 7.5 degrees (p. 6, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Chen further teaches a difference between the angle θ1 (6) and the angle θ2 (8) is greater than −4 degrees and less than 4 degrees (p. 6-7, “the angle value of the first included angle 6 is equal to the angle value of the third included angle 8”).
Regarding claim 11, Chen further teaches an angle θ5 (6) at which the first optical axis (first portion of 10) is tilted relative to a base surface (9) and an angle θ6 (8) at which the display panel (2) is rotated relative to the base surface (9) satisfy a conditional expression 0.33<|θ5/θ6|<15 (p. 6-7, “the angle value of the first included angle 6 is equal to the angle value of the third included angle 8”).
Regarding claim 12, Chen further teaches the angle θ5 (6) is within a range of 0.5 degrees to 3 degrees (p. 6, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Chen further teaches the angle θ6 (8) is within a range of 0.2 degrees to 1.5 degrees (p. 6, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Chen further teaches a Fresnel lens element (3) disposed between the display panel (2) and the freeform-surface reflective mirror (4), wherein an optical axis (10) of the Fresnel lens element (3) is parallel to the second optical axis (second portion of 10; Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Chen further teaches an included angle between the second optical axis (second portion of 10) and a tangent plane of a geometric center of the freeform-surface reflective mirror (4) is greater than or equal to 20 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees, e.g., 45 degrees (Fig. 1-3).
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 8-10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Chen further teaches an angle θ3 (6) at which the first optical axis (first portion of 10) is tilted relative to a base surface (9) and an angle θ4 (8) at which a plane where the display panel (2) is positioned is tilted relative to the base surface (9). Chen does not explicitly teach the conditional expression 0.073<|θ3/θ4|<0.5 is satisfied.
Scheimpflug principle, which describes the tilt relationship between θ3 and θ4, is well known in the art (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle).
Having the 0.073<|θ3/θ4|<0.5 amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results which is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Furthermore, having the 0.073<|θ3/θ4|<0.5 requires only rearrangement of parts that does not change the principle of operation in anyway. Rearrangement of parts without changing the operation of the reference device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 9, Chen further teaches the angle θ3 (6) is within a range of 0.8 degrees to 2.5 degrees (p. 6, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further teaches the angle θ4 (8) is within a range of 5 degrees to 11 degrees (p. 6, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Chen does not explicitly teach the projection device is an upright-type projection device or a lying-type projection device.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to make the projector an upright-type projection device or a lying-type projection device; because it is a matter of design choice.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zhu (CN 213545026 U).
Regarding claim 4, Chen does not explicitly teach a base plate, wherein the light-source module (1) is disposed on the base plate, and the base surface (9) is parallel to the base plate.
Zhu teaches a base plate (21), wherein the light-source module (12) is disposed on the base plate, and the base surface (14 plane) is parallel to the base plate (21; Fig. 3, 4, 6, and 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Zhu; because it allows cooling of the light source to improve life expectancy of the system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Guo (US 20210302811 A1) and in further view of Tatsuno (US 20120154768 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Chen does not explicitly teach the freeform-surface reflective mirror (4) symmetrical with respect to a first plane and asymmetrical with respect to a second plane, the first optical axis (first portion of 10) and the second optical axis (second portion of 10) are positioned on the first plane, and the second plane is perpendicular to the first plane.
Guo teaches the freeform-surface reflective mirror being a curved freeform-surface reflective mirror (7; [0062], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Guo; because the curved freeform mirror of Guo allows for greater optical correction ([0062] of Guo).
Guo does not explicitly teach freeform-surface reflective mirror symmetrical with respect to a first plane and asymmetrical with respect to a second plane, the first optical axis and the second optical axis are positioned on the first plane, and the second plane is perpendicular to the first plane.
Tatsuno teaches freeform-surface reflective mirror (20; Fig. 2 and 5) symmetrical with respect to a first plane (Y-Z) and asymmetrical with respect to a second plane (X-Z), the first optical axis and the second optical axis are positioned on the first plane (Y-Z; Fig. 2), and the second plane is perpendicular to the first plane (X-Z; Fig. 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to Chen and Guo with Tatsuno; because it allows for trapezoidal distortion correction to improve the viewing experience ([0040] of Tatsuno).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lin (US 20150301320 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chen further teaches a multi element projection lens (5); but does not explicitly teach the projection lens assembly (5) comprises a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, and a fourth lens element in a sequence from an object side to an image side, and the first lens element and the second lens element are formed as a glued lens element.
Lin teaches the projection lens assembly (18) comprises a first lens element (S18-S19), a second lens element (S17-S18), a third lens element (one of 42/40/34/46/44/32/30/28), and a fourth lens element (other of 42/40/34/46/44/32/30/28) in a sequence from an object side to an image side, and the first lens element (S18-S19) and the second lens element (S17-S18) are formed as a glued lens element (36; [0023], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Lin; because it provides a short throw projection lens to improve placement of the projector for better viewing experience.
Regarding claim 18, neither Chen nor Lin explicitly teach a distance between an object-side surface of the first lens element and an image-side surface of the fourth lens element on the first optical axis is TL1, a diameter of the lens element among the first lens element to the fourth lens element having a largest diameter is D1, and the projection lens assembly satisfies a conditional expression 0.7<|TL1/D1|<1.5.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, changing the size of the diameter, D1, of the lens element such that 0.7<|TL1/D1|<1.5 is a matter of design choice; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Furthermore, changes in size or proportion that does not affect the functionality of the device is prima facie obvious. 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.). 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.
Conclusion
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