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 July 22, 2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled in the present application. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 7, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112”, filed July 22, 2026, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 that Zhang fails to teach “a height of the vertical plate is lower than a lower edge of an effective light area,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Zhang fails to teach “a height of the vertical plate is lower than a lower edge of an effective light area.” However, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, adjusting the height of the vertical plate taught by Zhang to be lower than a lower edge of the an effective light area of the prism taught by Wang would prevent imagining light from being blocked by the baffle and the height of the vertical wall could be readily adjusted while maintaining the function of the baffle to better fix the prism to the housing (Zhang [0013]). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 over Wang and Zhang.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN 113281875 A – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) in view of Zhang et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN 107300745 A – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a prism fixing structure (Figure 7) of an optical machine (Figure 1, Abstract), comprising:
a body (Figure 1 optical housing 10, [0042]); and
a prism (Figure 3 prism 45, [0044]), wherein:
the body is provided with a slot (Figure 6 positioning groove 71, [0048]), a bearing surface (Figure 7 positioning surface 1334, [0054]), and the prism comprises a first side edge (Figure 3 surface 453, [0054]), a second side edge (Figure 3 surface 452, [0053]) and a hypotenuse connected end to end (Figure 3 surface 451, [0044] surface 451 connects to surfaces 452, 453); a point (Figure 7 protrusion 1333, [0054]) is provided between the first side edge and the bearing surface ([0054] protrusion 1333 is between surface 453 and surface 1334), and an oblique angle end formed by the second side edge and the hypotenuse is clamped in the slot (Figure 4 corner 454 is clamped in positioning groove 71, [0048]). Although Wang fails to teach using glue on the protrusion, Wang does teach using glue to fix the prism ([0058]-[0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply glue to the protrusions taught by Wang in order to better fix the prism since gluing is a well-known method to attach a prism to a housing.
Wang fails to teach the hypotenuse is fitted with a baffle; the baffle comprises a horizontal plate and a vertical plate connected the horizontal plate, the horizontal plate is connected to the body, and the vertical plate is parallel to and fitted with the hypotenuse. However, Zhang teaches a prism fixing structure (Figure 6) where the hypotenuse is fitted with a baffle (Figures 2 and 6 prism fixing device 2 is fitted with hypotenuse of prism 4); the baffle (Figures 2 and 6 prism fixing device 2) comprises a horizontal plate (Figure 2 horizontal lower plate of prism fixing device 2, [0036]) and a vertical plate (Figure 2 vertical plates of prism fixing device 2, [0036]) connected the horizontal plate (Figure 2 vertical plates are connected to horizontal lower plate), the horizontal plate is connected to the body ([0036] horizontal lower plate is connected to the base), and the vertical plate is parallel to and fitted with the hypotenuse (Figures 2 and 6 vertical plates of prism fixing device 2 are fitted with hypotenuse of prism 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism fixing structure taught by Wang by adding the baffle taught by Zhang in order to better fix the prism to the housing (Zhang [0013]).
Wang and Zhang fail to teach height of the vertical plate is lower than a lower edge of an effective light area of the prism. However, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, adjusting the height of the vertical plate taught by Zhang to be lower than a lower edge of the an effective light area of the prism taught by Wang would prevent imagining light from being blocked by the baffle and the height of the vertical wall could be readily adjusted while maintaining the function of the baffle to better fix the prism to the housing (Zhang [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism fixing structure taught by Wang and Zhang by having the height of the vertical plate is lower than a lower edge of an effective light area of the prism in order to prevent imaging light from being blocked and doing so merely requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4 , Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang further teaches the bearing surface (Figure 7 surface 1334) is parallel to the first side edge (Figure 4 surface 1334 is parallel to surface 453, [0046]), and the bearing surface is fitted with the first side edge except for a position of the glue point (Figure 4 surface 1334 is fitted to surface 453, [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang further teaches the bearing surface (Figure 7 surface 1334) comprises at least two sub-bearing surfaces provided at intervals (Figure 7 at least two protrusions 1333, [0054]). Although Wang fails to teach each of the sub-bearing surfaces is provided with the glue point, Wang does teach using glue to fix the prism ([0058]-[0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply glue to the protrusions taught by Wang in order to better fix the prism since glueing is a well-known method to attach a prism to a housing.
Regarding claim 6, Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 5. Wang further teaches at least two points are provided (Figure 7 at least two protrusions 1333, [0054]), and heights of the at least glue points are identical (Figure 7 at least two protrusions 1333 are the same height, [0054]). Although Wang fails to teach using glue on the protrusion, Wang does teach using glue to fix the prism ([0058]-[0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply glue to the protrusions taught by Wang in order to better fix the prism since glueing is a well-known method to attach a prism to a housing.
Regarding claim 7, Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang further teaches a width of the slot is (Figure 6 positioning groove 71, [0048]) gradually expanded from a bottom of the slot to an opening of the slot (Figure 6 positioning groove 71 expands from a point at the bottom to the open (positioning groove 71 is triangle-shaped), and one side of the slot is parallel to and partially fitted with the second side edge (Figure 6 and 7 surface 132 forming one side of positioning groove 71 is parallel to and fitted with surface 452. [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang fails to teach the baffle is integrally molded with the body. However, Zhang teaches a baffle (Figures 2 and 6 prism fixing device 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism fixing taught by Wang by add the baffle taught by Zhang in order to better fix the prism to the housing (Zhang [0013]).
Wang and Zhang fail to teach the baffle is integrally molded with the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the baffle taught by Zhang be integrally formed with the body taught by Wang, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 9, Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang further teaches the prism is a right-angle triangular prism (Figure 3 prism 45 is a right-angle triangular prism), and the first side edge and the second side edge are perpendicular to each other (Figure 3 surface 452 and 453 are perpendicular to each other).
Regarding claim 10, Wang and Zhang teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the glue point is 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm. However, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the protrusions taught by Wang be between 0.9 mm and 1.1 mm in order to properly size the protrusions and allow for a compact device.
Regarding claim 11, Wang and Zhang teach a projection optical machine (Wang Figure 3, [0005] optical engine), comprising the prism fixing structure of the optical machine according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Chinese Patent Publication CN 113281875 A) in view of Zhang (Chinese Patent Publication CN 107300745 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN 207096547 U – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”).
Regarding claim 3, Wang and Zhang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wang and Zhang fail to teach a boss is provided on the body, the boss is abutted against a bottom surface of the prism, and a thickness of the horizontal plate and a height of the boss are identical. However, Zeng teaches an optical engine with a prism (Figure 7, [0005]) with a boss is provided on the body (Figure 6 boss 11 on body 1, [0035]), the boss is abutted against a bottom surface of the prism ([0035] boss surface is in contact with the bottom of prism). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add a boss the same height as the horizontal plate of the baffle in order to minimize the area of the prism blocked by the baffle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism fixing device taught by Wang and Zheng by adding a boss as taught by Zeng and setting the height of the boss to be the same as the horizontal plate in order to minimize the area of the prism being blocked by the baffle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Toriumi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0086316) discloses a prism fixing device with a baffle similar to the instant invention.
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 ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights