DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct
Species 1. an embodiment of figs. 2A-2B, A diffusion module, comprising:
a motor having a rotation plate, wherein the rotation plate is adapted to rotate around a central axis of the motor; further specified in: a washer, Corresponding to claims 1-9.
Species 2. an embodiment of fig. 3, a diffusion module, comprising:
a motor having a rotation plate, wherein the rotation plate is adapted to rotate around a central axis of the motor; further specified in: a surface 212 of the rotation plate 210b facing away from the body 220 has a recess 213, Corresponding to claims 10-15.
Species 3. an embodiment of fig. 4, A diffusion module, comprising:
a motor having a rotation plate, wherein the rotation plate is adapted to rotate around a central axis of the motor; further specified in: a side surface 214 of the rotation plate 210 facing away from the central axis A1, Corresponding to claims 16-20.
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, the limitation of “a motor having a rotation plate, wherein the rotation plate is adapted to rotate around a central axis of the motor" is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
only a single species can make one product. for example, species 2-3 did not involve the diffusion module including a washer; species 1 and 3 did not involve the diffusion module including a surface 212 of the rotation plate 210b facing away from the body 220 has a recess 213, and species 1-2 did not involve the diffusion module including a side surface 214 of the rotation plate 210 facing away from the central axis A1.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Belinda Lee on 7/24/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of specie 2, claims 10-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-9 and 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN111665579A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches a diffusion module (Chen, figs. 1-7 of first embodiment, abstract, the invention provides a diffusion color wheel with different haze degrees and an illumination module of a projection device), comprising:
a motor (figs. 1-3, motor M) having a rotation plate (figs. 1-7, diffuser color wheel 10, 10a), wherein the rotation plate is adapted to rotate around a central axis of the motor (see paragraph [0034] “The diffusion color wheel 10 can be driven by a rotating unit M (e.g., a motor) so that the diffusion color wheel 10 can rotate along a central axis C”); and
a light diffusive material (see figs. 4-7, optical coating layer 13, as described in paragraph [0039] “optical coating layer 13”) attached to a surface (figs. 5-7, surface 111) of the rotation plate (the 13) facing away from a body of the motor (the M; see figs. 1-7, the light diffusive material 13 attached to a surface 111 of the rotation plate 10, 10a facing away from a body of the motor M ).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and further teaches wherein the light diffusive material (the optical coating layer 13) is directly attached to the rotation plate (10a).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and further teaches wherein the surface (figs. 1-7, the surface 111) of the rotation plate (10, 10a) facing away from the body (the body of the motor M) has a recess (see Chen, fig. 6, the surface 111 has the recess 128), and the light diffusive material (the optical coating layer 13) is disposed in the recess (the 128).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN111665579A, English translation attached), and further in view of Miyazaki (US20140354960).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 10, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein an outer diameter of the rotation plate is less than or equal to an outer diameter of the body of the motor.
However, Miyazaki teaches the analogous rotation plate (Miyazaki, figs. 9-11, as described in paragraphs [0134]-[0142]; “the rotary plate base material 102 of the optical wheel 101”), and further teaches
wherein an outer diameter of the rotation plate (Miyazaki, figs. 9-11, paragraph [0141] “the outside diameter of an optical wheel 101” has been referred to as an outer diameter of the rotation plate) is less than or equal to an outer diameter of the body of the motor (“the outside diameter of a wheel holding member 113” has been referred to as an outer diameter of the body of the motor; paragraph [0141] “the outside diameter of an optical wheel 101 is made smaller than the outside diameter of a wheel holding member 113”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen to have the specific diameter as taught by Miyazaki for the purpose to be possible not only to reduce the weight of the optical wheel device but also to enhance a heat dissipating efficiency of the optical wheel (Miyazaki, paragraph [0135]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN111665579A, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 10, but fig. 6 of Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein further comprising a haze sheet disposed in front of the light diffusive material, wherein a beam penetrates the haze sheet and then is transmitted to the light diffusive material.
However, Chen described in paragraph [0009] “The light-transmitting substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; the diffusion layer has multiple optical microstructure regions disposed on the first surface or the second surface, and the multiple optical microstructure regions have different haze”), and further fig. 9 of Chen teaches wherein
a haze sheet (fig. 9, optical microstructure 125 has been referred to as a haze sheet; paragraph [0049] “optical microstructure 125”) disposed in front of the light diffusive material (fig. 9, optical microstructure 123 has been referred to as the light diffusive material), wherein a beam (see fig. 1, paragraph [0034] “one coherent light source (110, 120, 130)”) penetrates the haze sheet (fig. 9, the 125) and then is transmitted to the light diffusive material (123; paragraph [0050] “the laser beam passes through different thicknesses to generate optical path difference, or so that the laser beam passes through surfaces with different haze to generate different diffusion angles, and then is focused by a lens to eliminate or reduce speckle”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the layer of fig. 6 of Chen to have the specific layer as taught by fig. 9 of Chen for the purpose to eliminate or reduce speckle (Chen, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 14 and further teaches wherein the light diffusive material (13) is a diffusion-reflection diffusive material (paragraph [0044] “the optical coating layer 13 can be a high-reflectivity film”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hsu et al. US20190353997 teaches a limitation of claim 10, such as a light diffusive material (see figs. 1-8 and their descriptions), and Zhang et al. US20250028183 teaches a limitation of claim 10, such as a motor having a rotation plate, wherein the rotation plate is adapted to rotate around a central axis of the motor (see Fig.1 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights