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 07/27/2026 amended claims 1, 15 and 16. Claims 1-16 are rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 15 and 16.
Objection/s to the Specification
The filing on 07/27/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objection/s to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.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.
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 1-3, 9, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippin (US 20210072626 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tippin teaches a projection system (Fig. 1-5B) including a first projector (102) that projects image light onto a screen (104) and a support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110), wherein the support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110) includes a cable holder (top section of 106b) that holds a cable ([0038], [0043]) having one end coupled to the first projector (102) and a support section (106c/f) that positions the cable holder (top section of 106b) with respect to an installation surface (surface of 112) at which the first projector (102) is provided, and in an upward vertical direction, a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to the cable holder (top section of 106b) is greater than a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to a top surface of the first projector (102).
Tipping does not teach the cable having a portion that extends over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side.
Having a portion of the cable extending over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side amounts to rearrangement of parts, according to one interpretation of the limitation, that does not changing the principle of operation of the reference device; hence it is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, having a portion of the cable extending over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side can also be interpreted as a matter of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Tippin further teaches a first distance is greater than or equal to a second distance, the first distance being the distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to the cable holder (top section of 106b) in the upward vertical direction, the second distance being a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to a position on the screen (104) that is farthest from the installation surface (surface of 112) in the upward vertical direction (Fig. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 3, Tippin further teaches an installation base (112) having the installation surface (surface of 112), at which the first projector (102) is provided, wherein the support section (106c/f) is coupled to the installation base (112).
Regarding claim 9, Tippin further teaches the support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110) further includes a first fixing section (106d/e) and a second fixing section (the other of 106d/e) that detachably fix the support section (106c/f) to the installation base (112).
Regarding claim 13, Tippin further teaches the support section (106f) is a columnar member, and a part of an outer circumferential surface of the support section (106f) is in contact with the installation base (112; Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 15, Tippin teaches an installation unit (Fig. 1-5B) to which a cable ([0038], [0043]) is coupled and in which a projector (102) that projects image light is provided, the installation unit comprising: an installation base (112) having an installation surface (surface of 112) at which the projector (102) is provided; and a support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110) that is coupled to the installation base (112) and supports the cable, wherein the support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110) includes a cable holder (top section of 106b) that holds the cable and a support section (106c/f) that positions the cable holder (top section of 106b) with respect to the installation surface (surface of 112), and in an upper vertical direction, a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to the cable holder (top section of 106b) is greater than a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to a top surface of the projector (102).
Tipping does not teach the cable having a portion that extends over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side.
Having a portion of the cable extending over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side amounts to rearrangement of parts, according to one interpretation of the limitation, that does not changing the principle of operation of the reference device; hence it is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, having a portion of the cable extending over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side can also be interpreted as a matter of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Tippin teaches a support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110) used in a projection system (Fig. 1-5B) including a projector (102) that projects image light onto a screen (104), the support apparatus (106a/b/c/d/e/f, 108, 110) comprising: a cable holder (top section of 106b) that holds a cable ([0038], [0043]) having one end coupled to the projector (102); and a support section (106c/f) that positions the cable holder (top section of 106b) with respect to an installation surface (surface of 112) at which the projector (102) is provided, wherein in an upper vertical direction, a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to the cable holder (top section of 106b) is greater than a distance from the installation surface (surface of 112) to a top surface of the projector (102).
Tipping does not teach the cable having a portion that extends over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side.
Having a portion of the cable extending over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side amounts to rearrangement of parts, according to one interpretation of the limitation, that does not changing the principle of operation of the reference device; hence it is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, having a portion of the cable extending over an upper end of the screen and across from one side of the screen to another side of the screen opposite to the one side can also be interpreted as a matter of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claims 4-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippin in view of Goodbinder (US 10179598 B1) and in further view of M15 Pulley.
Regarding claim 4, Tippin does not teach the cable holder includes a shaft that extends along a first direction that intersects with the vertical direction, a rotor that rotates around a first axis of rotation passing through the shaft, and a frame part coupled to the shaft, the frame part includes a first extending section located at one side of the rotor in the first direction and a second extending section located at another side of the rotor in the first direction, and the first and second extending sections protrude beyond the rotor in a second direction along the vertical direction.
Goodbinder teaches the cable holder including a pulley (68, 82; Fig. 8A/B, 9A/B; col. 6, lines 27-29).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Tippin with Goodbinder; because it allows greater extension and reach of the projector from a power source.
Neither Tippin nor Goodbinder explicitly teaches a shaft that extends along a first direction that intersects with the vertical direction, a rotor that rotates around a first axis of rotation passing through the shaft, and a frame part coupled to the shaft, the frame part includes a first extending section located at one side of the rotor in the first direction and a second extending section located at another side of the rotor in the first direction, and the first and second extending sections protrude beyond the rotor in a second direction along the vertical direction.
M15 teaches a shaft that extends along a first direction that intersects with the vertical direction, a rotor that rotates around a first axis of rotation passing through the shaft, and a frame part coupled to the shaft, the frame part includes a first extending section located at one side of the rotor in the first direction and a second extending section located at another side of the rotor in the first direction, and the first and second extending sections protrude beyond the rotor in a second direction along the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Tippin and Goodbinder with M15; because it reduces undue experimentation by using known pulley design.
PNG
media_image1.png
1000
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Tippin, Goodbinder, and M15 consequently results in the frame part further includes a coupler that couples the first extending section and the second extending section to each other, and the cable is surrounded by the coupler, the first extending section, the second extending section, and the rotor (see illustration above).
Regarding claim 6, Tippin, Goodbinder, and M15 consequently results in the rotor has a holding surface at which the cable is held, and the holding surface has a recess recessed toward the shaft in a cross-sectional view taken along a plane containing the first and second directions (see illustration above).
Regarding claim 7, Tippin, Goodbinder, and M15 consequently results in a surface of the recess is a curved surface having a curvature defined with respect to the first axis of rotation of the rotor (see illustration above).
Regarding claim 8, Tippin, Goodbinder, and M15 consequently results in the rotor has a plurality of the recesses (see illustration above).
Regarding claim 12, Tippin, Goodbinder, and M15 consequently results in the cable holder (pulley) rotates around a second axis of rotation perpendicular to the first axis of rotation (see illustration above).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippin in view of Walters (US 20110089300 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tippin does not explicitly teach the installation base (112) further includes an attachment section to which the first and second fixing sections (106d and 106e) are attached, and the attachment section is fixed to each of a first surface and a second surface of the installation base (112) that are perpendicular to each other.
Walters teaches the installation base (57, 71, 10) further includes an attachment section (51) to which the first and second fixing sections (first and second fasteners; Fig. 6) are attached, and the attachment section (51) is fixed to each of a first surface and a second surface of the installation base (57, 71, 10) that are perpendicular to each other (Fig. 2 and 6, 8, 10B-12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Tippin with Walters; because it allows greater stability and stronger fixation of the projector to the installation base to prevent misalignment with the screen.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tippin and Walters consequently results in the first fixing section (first fastener) includes a first protrusion (first screw), the second fixing section (second fastener) includes a second protrusion (second screw), and the attachment section (51) further has a first slit opening (60) to which the first protrusion (first screw) is hooked and a second slit opening (54) to which the second protrusion (second screw) is hooked (Fig. 6; [0030]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippin in view of Miyazawa (US 20080042922 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tippin does not explicitly teach a second projector that projects image light onto the screen (104) in a direction different from a direction in which the first projector (102) projects image light, wherein another end of the cable coupled to the first projector (102) is coupled to the second projector.
Miyazawa teaches a second projector (3B) that projects image light onto the screen (5) in a direction different from a direction in which the first projector (3A) projects image light, wherein another end of the cable (4B) coupled to the first projector (3A) is coupled to the second projector (3B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Tippin with Miyazawa; because it allows greater brightness and resolution to improve viewing experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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