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 amendment filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderschuit (US 2006/0291217) in view of Chien (US 2015/0159843).
Regarding claim 1. Vanderschuit discloses an illumination device (10, see Fig. 3, Para. 0058) comprising: a light projection device (226-274, see Fig. 3, Para. 0073) configured to be disposed at least partially within a shell portion (214, see Fig. 3, Para. 0071), the light projection device including: at least one light source (plurality of light sources 226, see Fig. 3, Para. 0073) operably couplable to a power source (232, see Fig. 3, Para. 0073); and a projection members (270) that comprise a suitable lens material (see Fig. 3, Para. 0077) configured to distribute a light beam generated by the at least one light source onto an interior surface of the shell portion to generate an image (276, see Fig. 3, Para. 0077).
However, Vanderschuit is silent with respect to at least one diffraction grating having distributed gratings.
Chien teaches a nightlight system (100/600, see Figs. 1 and 6) that includes a light source (LEDs 102/602, see Figs. 1 and 6, Para. 0058, 0075) and optical components (604, see Fig. 6, Para. 0075) including a diffraction grating (612, see Fig. 6, Para. 0075) to produce a hologram of an image (614, see Fig. 6, Para. 0077).
Therefore, in view of Chien, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderschuit’s projection members to include diffraction grating having distributed gratings for the purpose of providing a hologram of an image, as suggested by Chien, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, diffraction grating to produce a desire image would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 2. Vanderschuit further discloses the shell portion (214, see Para. 0077).
Although Vanderschuit does not explicitly refer to the inflatable structure as elastomeric, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the balloon of prior art is elastic and made of polymer and is thus equivalent of the claimed element, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 3. Vanderschuit further discloses the shell portion includes: a rigid structure (hollow tube 248 that is enclosed in the balloon 214, see Fig. 3, Para. 0075).
Regarding claim 4. Vanderschuit further discloses the at least one light source (226, see Fig. 3, Para. 0073) includes: light-emitting diodes (LEDs), although other suitable light sources could be used (see Para. 0073).
Regarding the claim limitation that the light source to include a laser light source, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed light source type is significant, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any known and workable light source type such as laser in order to optimize the illumination for the intended purpose of the assembly, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, choosing laser LED would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 5. Vanderschuit further disclose an alternative embodiments as shown in Figs. 12-14, a non-linear distribution of the light beam corresponds to a shape of the shell portion so as to at least partially eliminate distortion of the image.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderschuit to produce non-linear distribution of the light beam corresponds to a shape of the shell portion so as to at least partially eliminate distortion of the image for the purpose of providing a particular lighting effect that is desired using the light source as suggested by in the alternative embodiments, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, providing a non-linear distribution so as to at least partially eliminate distortion of the image would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 7. Vanderschuit further discloses comprising: a support frame (248, see Fig. 3, Para. 0075) operably coupled to the light projection device.
Regarding claim 8. Vanderschuit further discloses a closure (plastic clip 222, see Fig. 3, Para. 0071, 0072) operably coupled to the support frame.
Regarding claim 10. Vanderschuit further disclose an alternative embodiments as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, wherein the support frame (648, see Fig. 7) is configured to be disposed at least partially within the shell portion and at least partially outside the shell portion (see Fig. 7, see Para. 0101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderschuit’s support frame to include the support frame to have various lengths (e.g. disposed at least partially within the shell portion and at least partially outside the shell portion as shown in the alternative embodiments) such modification would allow selection of suitable support frame length based on a desired display configuration and/or particular balloon size, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, configuring the support frame to have a selected or desired length would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderschuit in view of Chien and further in view of Harms et al. (US 2012/0081908).
Regarding claim 9. Vanderschuit further discloses a closure (plastic clip 222, see Fig. 3, Para. 0071, 0072) operably coupled to the support frame.
However, Vanderschuit is silent with respect to the closure includes: a check valve.
Harms et al. teaches an expandable envelope (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0016) that includes access (130, see Fig. 1, Para. 0030-0031) in the form of a check valve, wherein a light balloon (200 in Fig. 2) is inflated with a lighter-than-air medium (170, Para. 0031) such that the light balloon (200) floats in air.
Therefore, in view of Harms et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderschuit by including a check valve in order to preventing unwanted reverse flow, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a check valve.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderschuit in view of Chien and further in view of Zhang (US 9,194,551).
Regarding claims 12 and 13. The teachings of Vanderschuit have been discussed above.
However, Vanderschuit fails to disclose or fairly suggest the light projection device further comprises: a slide slot configured to receive an image slide in a light path of the light projection device; wherein the light projection device further comprises: an image slide receivable within the slide slot.
Chien teaches a system (700) that includes a rotating the disc (712, see Fig. 7, Para. 0086) with slides (714) that contain the images (710) and the slides (714, see Fig. 7) can be changed by rotating the disc (712, Para. 0086).
Zhang teaches a dynamic image projector (1, see Fig. 3) that include a housing (10), a lens set (20); wherein the light projection device (1) further comprises: a slide slot (slide assembly 60, guiding slot 123) configured to receive an image slide (e.g. transparent pattern sheet 62, see Col. 4; lines 5-23) in a light path of the light projection device; wherein the light projection device further comprises: an image slide (transparent pattern sheet 62, see Fig. 1, Col. 4; lines 29-48) receivable within the slide slot.
Therefore, in view of Chien and Zhang, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderschuit to modify the light projection device to include a slide slot in order to generate dynamically varying image. One would have been motivated to make this combination to provide an improved projecting image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest the least one diffraction grating having non-linearly distributed gratings that are configured to distribute the light beam generated by the at least one light source onto the interior surface of the shell portion to account for varying focal lengths associated with projection on a curved surface of the shell portion and as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 12, and 13 have been considered but are moot because a new basis of rejection is being applied in response to the applicant's amendment to the claims.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875