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 12/12/2025 amended claim 1. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claim 1.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruan (US 20100053563 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ruan teaches projection video display device comprising: an optical system (150) that projects video light; a projection lens (180) on which the video light is incident; a light blocking member (160, 170) that absorbs and converts into heat a part of unnecessary light unnecessary for the projection lens (180) in the video light, the light blocking member (160, 170) including a reflector (162b/c); and a light absorber (174) which absorbs a light reflected by the light blocking member (160, 170), wherein the reflector (162b/c) is disposed on an external surface of the light blocking member (160, 170) to be inclined at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to the external surface of the light blocking member (160, 170).
Regarding claim 3, Ruan further teaches the light blocking member (160, 170) has a curved surface (162) having a predetermined curvature (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ruan further teaches the light blocking member (160, 170) is disposed at a position where a light from the optical system (150) enters (Fig. 1-5).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Kase (US 20180275497 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ruan does not teach a heat dissipator that dissipates heat of the light absorber to outside air.
Kase teaches a heat dissipator (90a, 92, 92a, 921) that dissipates heat of the light absorber (94) to outside air ([0060], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Ruan with Kase; because it prevents overheating that shorten the life of the projector.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruan in view of Kase and in further view of Kang (US 20070268593 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ruan does not explicitly teach the projection lens (180) and the light blocking member (160, 170) are made of a same material.
Kase teaches the blocking member (90, 91, 92, 921, and/or 93) being made of aluminum ([0060]). Kang teaches the projection lens being made of aluminum ([0049], Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to having the projection lens and the blocking member being made of aluminum; because it allows efficient heat dissipation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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