Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/940,876

PROJECTION DEVICE AND PROJECTION METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 08, 2024
Examiner
SATTI, HUMAM M
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Coretronic Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
283 granted / 450 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
60.1%
+20.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 450 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosu (Pub 20060197921) in view of Wong (Pub 20080110265). Regarding claims 1 and 13, Kurosu discloses a projection device, (projector 10 fig 1) suitable for projecting to a target area, wherein the projection device comprises an optical engine, (projection optical system 300 fig 1), a ranging unit, (optical distance measurement unit 1 fig 1), and a processor, (see controller Para. [0041]) wherein: the optical engine is configured to project an image beam for forming a first image, (see screen 20 for displaying an image projected by projector 10 fig 1 Para. [0040]); the ranging unit is configured to emit a plurality of testing light beams toward the target area, detect reflected light beams formed by reflection of the testing light beams, and extract an effective sensing information corresponding to the reflected light beams, (see emitting plurality of beams using optical axis deflector for deflecting a beam to two different distance measuring positions, where the beams are reflected and received, construed as extracting effective sensing information to generate distance measurements, Para. [0041]) and the processor is coupled to the ranging unit and the optical engine the processor is configured to receive the effective sensing information from the ranging unit, (see controller for receiving reflected beams to generate distance information, Para. [0041]) generate first projection distance information according to the effective sensing information, (see measurement position A, Para. [0041]). However, control the optical engine to project the image beam to the target area according to the first projection distance information, so that the first image is formed within an effective focal length range of the projection device is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Wong discloses control the optical engine to project the image beam to the target area according to the first projection distance information, so that the first image is formed within an effective focal length range of the projection device, (Para. [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kurosu by Wong for the benefit of improving a user’s experience by displaying focused images after projection distance deviation are corrected. Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosu in view of Wong in view of Nishimoto (Pub 20260023166). Regarding claims 2 and 14, the combination discloses claims 1 and 13. However, selecting effective reflected light beams and obtaining first effective sensing points corresponding to the effective beams are not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Nishimoto discloses wherein the ranging unit selects a plurality of first effective reflected light beams from the reflected light beams according to a set condition, and obtains a plurality of first effective sensing points corresponding to the plurality of first effective reflected light beams, wherein the effective sensing information comprises the plurality of first effective reflected light beams and the plurality of first effective sensing points, (see Fig 7 and Fig 8 for selecting reflected light to generate pixel distance information, construed as effective sensing information. The reflected light, construed as effective reflected beams, are selected according to minimum value, construed as set condition. When the light intensity is below a minimum value, the corresponding pixel distance is not selected, see Fig 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Nishimoto for the benefit of generating accurate distance information so that projection images are improved thereby enhancing a user’s viewing experience. Regarding claims 3 and 15, the combination discloses claims 1 and 13. However, selecting sensing points and generating distance information according the sensing points where the points are arranged along a first direction and on one plane is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Nishimoto discloses wherein the processor selects at least three first selected sensing points from the plurality of first effective sensing points, and generates the first projection distance information according to the at least three first selected sensing points; wherein the at least three first selected sensing points are arranged along a first direction and located on one plane, (see the result of Fig 10 for selecting, as selective distance information, pixel distance information corresponding to maximum light intensity, “Select pixel distance information”, construed as selected sensing points from a plurality of effective sensing points, to generate distance information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Nishimoto for the benefit of generating accurate distance information so that projection images are improved thereby enhancing a user’s viewing experience. Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination discloses claims 2 and 14. However, wherein the set condition is that an energy intensity of the reflected light beam is greater than a threshold value, and the reflected light beam is selected as the first effective reflected light beam, if the reflected light beam satisfies the set condition is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Nishimoto discloses wherein the set condition is that an energy intensity of the reflected light beam is greater than a threshold value, and the reflected light beam is selected as the first effective reflected light beam, if the reflected light beam satisfies the set condition, (see reflected light is selected when it is greater than a minimum value Fig 8 and Para. [0094-0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Nishimoto for the benefit of generating accurate distance information so that projection images are improved thereby enhancing a user’s viewing experience. Regarding claims 12 and 24, the combination discloses claims 2 and 14. However, wherein at least two effective reflected light beams among the plurality of first effective reflected light beams are generated by reflection of one testing light beam among the plurality of the testing light beams is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Nishimoto discloses wherein at least two effective reflected light beams among the plurality of first effective reflected light beams are generated by reflection of one testing light beam among the plurality of the testing light beams, (see light source 20 generating testing light towards subject 500 fig 1 where light reaches different reflectance areas 500A-500C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Nishimoto for the benefit of generating accurate distance information so that projection images are improved thereby enhancing a user’s viewing experience. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 -11, 17-23 are 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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. HUMAM M. SATTI Examiner Art Unit 2422 /JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598360
VIDEO CAPTIONING GENERATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589716
RAIN SENSOR SYSTEM, VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING RAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587619
METHOD OF ADJUSTING PROJECTION IMAGE, PROJECTION SYSTEM, AND CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12563287
Local generation of commands to a vehicle sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563164
PROJECTION METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 450 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month