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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on July 23, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amened claims 1-4, 10 and has newly added claim 12.
Claims 1-12 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a suction part … such that the suction part is a gap portion formed between the second surface of the rotating plate and a surface of the rotating body facing the opening” that is really confusing and indefinite. It is noted that the second surface of the rotating plate is on the back side of the rotating plate. It is not clear how to define “a surface of the rotating body facing the opening” and therefore it is not clear how define the gap portion. This phrase makes the scopes of the claims are unclear it therefore cannot be examined in detail.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phase “an inner side … of the rotating plate” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to define the inner side of the rotating plate.
Claims 2-12 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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(s) 1-4, and 6-10 and newly added claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Hu et al (US 2016/0069558 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Davis et al (US 2008/0062546 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Hu et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a wavelength conversion device that is comprised of a substrate (211, Figures 5C, or 711, 7A and 7B) serves as the rotating plate having a first surface and a second surface on an opposite side to the first surface, and a wavelength conversion layer serves as the wavelength converter (710, Figure 7B) disposed on an outer side that a center in a radial direction of the rotating plate. Hu et al teaches that the wavelength converter comprises phosphor (please see paragraph [0036]) which therefore is configured to emit converted light obtained by converting wavelength of excitation light made incident on the wavelength converter. Hu et al further teaches that the wavelength converter device comprises centrifugal fan or air circulation device (550, Figures 5A to 5C and 850, Figure 7B) that serves as the rotating device and coupled to the rotating plate and a motor (760, Figure 7B) serves as the driving source configured to rotate the rotating plate and the rotating body centering on the rotating axis.
Hu et al further teaches that the centrifugal fan or air circulation device is comprised of a suction part, defined between the multiple blades (552, Figure 5B and Figure 7C), by combining the rotating plate (711, Figure 7B) and the rotating body (550, or 850), and provided on an inner side when viewed from a side opposite to the driving source with respect to the rotating plate. The suction part is communicated with certain opening (please see Figure 5B) a space on a side opposite to the driving source with respect to the rotating plate. Hu et al also teaches that the centrifugal fan or air circulation device comprises multiple blades (552, Figure 5B or Figure 7C) that serves as the plurality of fins respectively extending from a portion on a rotation axis toward an outer side of the rotating plate, disposed side by side around the suction part and rotated together with the rotating plate by the diving source or motor.
The multiple blades or plurality of fins and the suction part together define a plurality of flow paths, i.e. provided among the plurality of fins and configured to cause an air flowing into an inside of the suction part via opening to flow to outside of the rotating body.
This reference has met all the limitations. Hu et al teaches that the centrifugal fan or air circulation deice comprises certain opening in order for the air to be flowed outside of the rotating body. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the rotating plate has an opening that penetrating the rotating plate from the first surface to the second surface. Davis et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a color filter wheel that is comprised of a rotating plate (18, Figure 2) that has an opening defined at center of the color filter plate that penetrates through the plate from the first surface to the second surface. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Davis et al to make the rotating plate has an opening penetrates from first surface to the second surface for the benefit of allowing the rotating source or motor to be engaged in the rotating plate and to allow the air being circulated out the device.
Claim 1 has been amended to includes the phrase “a suction part … such that the suction part is a gap portion formed between the second surface of the rotating plate and a surface of the rotating body facing the opening”. This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. This phrase therefore can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
As shown in Figures 5B and 5C, Hu et al teaches that the suction part is a gap portion formed between the ring axel (551, Figure 5B) and an inner surface of the rotating plate. Davis et al teaches that the suction part is a gap portion formed between the inner side surface of the rotating plate (18, Figure 2) and the rotating body or the axel portion of the rotating plate.
Claim 1 has been amended to include “a plurality of fins respectively extending from an inner side in a radial direction”.
Hu et al teaches that the plurality of fins extends from an inner side in a radial direction toward an outer side of the rotating plate, (552, please see Figures 5B and 5C). Davis et al also teaches that a plurality of fins respectively extends from an inner side in a radial direction toward an outer side of the rotating plate.
In light of the amendment to claim 1, Hu et al in light of Davis et al a plurality of flow paths provided among the plurality of fins through which air flow flowing into an inside of the suction part via the opening flows to an outside of the rotating body.
With regard to claims 2-4, the phrase “rotation axis side” recited is confusing and indefinite for the reasons set forth above. This phrase makes the scopes of the claims unclear. As shown in Figures 5B, 5C, 7B and 7C of Hu et al the plurality of fins or blades (552) that may be viewed as inside of the opening (in light of Davis et al) from one direction and be viewed as outside of the opening from an opposite direction. The plurality of fins or blades may alternatively be disposed at an edge portion of the rotating plate, (please see Figure 5A).
With regard to claim 6, it is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to make the rotating body includes a protrusions protruding toward rotating plate and to include an engaging part engaging the protrusion for the benefit of allowing the rotating body to be engaged with rotating source.
With regard to claim 7, Hu et al teaches that the first surface is facing the side opposite to the driving source in the rotating plate. In light of Davis et al the rotating plate includes a wall standing from the first surface and surrounding the opening, (please see Figure 2, Davis et al).
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Hu et al in light of Davis et al teaches that the opening overlaps the driving source when viewed along the rotation axis. With regard to claim 9, that an extension line of the rotation axis passes through the opening.
With regard to amended claim 10, Hu et al teaches that the wavelength conversion device is constituted in a light source device wherein the light source device comprises a box (720, Figure 7B) that serves as the case. The light source device with the wavelength conversion device implicitly includes a light source configured to emit excitation light, (please see paragraph [0036]) and the case implicitly includes an emitting part configured to emit the converted light to an outside.
With regard to newly added claim 12, Hu et al teaches that the opening is a circular opening provided at a central portion of the rotating plate when viewed along the rotation axis and air flowing into the gap portion via the circular opening flows through the plurality of flow paths toward an outer cir4cumferential side of the rotating body, (please see Figures 5B and 5C).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al and Davis et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Egawa (US 2017/0353701 A1).
The wavelength conversion device taught by Hu et al in combination with the teachings of Davis et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 5, these references do not teach explicitly that the rotating plate and the driving source are coupled via the plurality of fins. Egawa teaches a light source with wavelength conversion device wherein the driving source or the motor (60, Figure 3) is coupled to the rotating plate (63) via a plurality of fins (66, Figures 3 and 4). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Egawa to modify the wavelength conversion device of Hu et al to have a different design.
With regard to claim 11, Egawa teaches a projector (please see Figure 1) that includes a light source with device with wavelength conversion element (41), an image forming device (44) and projection optical device configured to project the image light formed by the image forming device, (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the light source with the wavelength conversion element be utilized in a projector for the benefit of allowing image may be projected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims and newly added claim have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an outer housing to enclose the blades) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, Hu et al explicitly teaches that housing is provided to house the blades, (please see Figures 4C, 5A, 7A and 7B).
The applicant is respectfully noted that the wavelength conversion taught by Hu et al has identical structure as the instant application specifically disclosed in Figure 14. The wavelength conversion taught by Davis et al has identical structure as the instant application specifically disclosed in Figure 3. The cited references therefore read on the claims of the instant application.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights