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 10/09/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 23-24 and 26-41 is/are pending. Claim(s) 30-41 remain withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 23-24 recite “the first arrangement direction” which should be changed to – a first arrangement direction – to establish antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 23-24 and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdl (US 2019/0285239) in view of Vargas Rivero et al. (US 2019/0016256) (hereinafter Vargas) and Drinkwater (US 2010/0085642).
Claim 23: Erdl teaches an illumination device that projects a projection pattern (SY, fig. 1) including information (see fig. 5) onto a projection plane (plane of SY, fig. 1), the illumination device comprising: a light source (101, 102, 103, fig. 2) that emits a coherent light beam (laser diode, see para [0038]); and a diffractive optical element (2, fig. 2) (holographic element, see para [0044]) that diffracts (diffraction effect occurs, see para [0012]) the coherent light beam (see fig. 2) from the light source (101, 102, 103) and projects the projection pattern (pattern on SY, fig. 1) by having diffracted light (light exiting 2, fig. 1) enter an illuminated area (area of 4 which is illuminated by L, fig. 1) on the projection plane (4, fig. 1), wherein the diffractive optical element (2) has a diffraction characteristic (grating of 2, fig. 1) that allow an observer who sees the projection pattern from a viewpoint position (any position above 4, fig. 1), to visually recognize the information displayed as joining at a base end (end of 4) to the projection plane (plane of SY), and the information (P, fig. 5) being observed to have a shape and a size which are different from a shape and a size (the examiner notes that the shape and size of the information being observed can be different based off the position/location of the observer) of the illuminated area (size and shape of P, fig. 4) on the projection plane (4, fig. 1), and
wherein a radiant intensity (intensity of light from 101-103, fig. 1) of a coherent light beam (laser light, see para [0008]) from the illumination device (1) toward a certain point of the projection pattern (SY), the diffractive optical element (2) includes a hologram (holographic optical structure 201-203, see para [0039]), and the diffractive optical element (2) includes a plurality of element diffraction parts (201, 202, 203, fig. 2) that are arranged in the first arrangement direction and a second arrangement direction, and each element diffraction part (201, 202, 203) of the plurality of element diffraction parts (201-203) displays an entirety of the information, or part of the information (see fig. 2), the element diffraction parts (201, 202, 203) have diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction (see fig. 2).
However, Erdl fails to teach the information extending out from the projection plane on a plane that is non-parallel to the projection plane and that stands up from the projection plane, and wherein the radiant intensity of a coherent light beam from the illumination device toward a certain point of the projection pattern is increased as a distance from the illumination device to the certain point increases, and a computer generated hologram, the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction, and the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the second arrangement direction.
Vargas teaches information (BI, fig. 3) being displayed as joining at the base end to the illuminated area (area of b and Xp in fig. 2), and extending out from the illuminated area (see figs. 1-3) on a plane (inclined plane of BI, fig. 3) that is non-parallel (see fig. 2) to the projection plane (PE, fig. 3) and that stands up from the projection plane (PE); and wherein a radiant intensity of a coherent light beam (intensity of light from headlight, see para [0076]) from the illumination device toward a certain point of the projection pattern is increased (light intensity can be adjusted, see para [0052]) as a distance from the illumination device to the certain point increases (increase the intensity to improve resolution, see para [0091]).
Therefore, in view of Vargas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the light diffraction characteristic of Erdl according to the teachings of Vargas where the information being displayed as joining at the base end to the illuminated area and extending out from the illuminated area on a plane that is non-parallel to the projection plane and that stands up from the projection plane; and wherein the radiant intensity of a coherent light beam from the illumination device toward a certain point of the projection pattern is increased as a distance from the illumination device to the certain point increases, in order to improve or increase the resolution of the projected special effects [Vargas, 0092].
Drinkwater teaches the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction (horizontal direction, see fig. 2), and the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the second arrangement direction (vertical direction, see fig. 2) (see para [0178]).
Therefore, in view of Drinkwater, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the element diffraction parts to have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction and a second arrangement direction, in order to enhance brightness of the device [Drinkwater, Abstract]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the diffraction characteristics in view of Erdl and Vargas and Drinkwater where the radiant intensity of a coherent light beam from the illumination device toward a certain point of the projection pattern is increased as a distance from the illumination device to the certain point increases to improve or increase resolution of the image, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Erdl discloses the claimed invention except for a computer generated hologram. It has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Claim 24: Erdl teaches an illumination device that projects a projection pattern (SY, fig. 1) including information (see fig. 5) onto a projection plane (plane of SY, fig. 1), the illumination device comprising: a light source (101, 102, 103, fig. 2) that emits a coherent light beam (laser diode, see para [0038]); and a diffractive optical element (2, fig. 2) (holographic element, see para [0044]) that diffracts (diffraction effect occurs, see para [0012]) the coherent light beam (see fig. 2) from the light source (101, 102, 103) and projects the projection pattern (pattern on SY, fig. 1) by having diffracted light (light exiting 2, fig. 1) enter an illuminated area (are of 4 which is illuminated by L, fig. 1) on the projection plane (4, fig. 1), wherein the diffractive optical element (2) has a diffraction characteristic (grating of 2, fig. 1) that allow an observer who sees the projection pattern (pattern on SY) from a viewpoint position (any position above 4, fig. 1), to visually recognize the information (P, fig. 4) displayed as joining at a base end (end of 4) to the illumination projection plane (plane of SY), and the information (P, fig. 5) being observed to have a shape and a size which are different from a shape and a size (the examiner notes that the shape and size of the information being observed can be different based off the position/location of the observer) of the illuminated area (size and shape of P, fig. 4) on the projection plane (4, fig. 1), and wherein a ratio of a certain part of the information (P) actually observed by the observer with respect to a corresponding part of the projection pattern (SY, fig. 4) on the projection plane (plane of SY), the diffractive optical element (2) includes a hologram (holographic optical structure 201-203, see para [0039]), and the diffractive optical element (2)includes a plurality of element diffraction parts (201, 202, 203, fig. 2) that are arranged in a first arrangement direction (horizontal direction in fig. 2) and a second arrangement direction (vertical direction in fig. 2), and each element diffraction part (201, 202, 203) of the plurality of element diffraction parts (201-203) displays an entirety of the information, or part of the information (see fig. 2),the element diffraction parts (201, 202, 203) have diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction (see fig. 2).
However, Erdl fails to teach the information being displayed as joining at the base end to the illuminated area and extending out from the illuminated area on a plane that is non-parallel to the projection plane and that stands up from the projection plane; and the ratio of the certain part of the information actually observed by the observer with respect to a corresponding part of the projection pattern on the projection plane decreases, as a distance from the viewpoint position of the observer to the certain part of the projection pattern increases, and a computer generated hologram, the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction, and the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the second arrangement direction.
Vargas teaches information (BI, fig. 3) being displayed as joining at the base end to the illuminated area (area of b and Xp in fig. 2), and extending out from the illuminated area (see figs. 1-3) on a plane (inclined plane of BI, fig. 3) that is non-parallel (see fig. 2) to the projection plane (PE, fig. 3) and that stands up from the projection plane (PE); and a ratio of a certain part of the information (BI) actually observed by the observer (see fig. 3) with respect to a corresponding part of the projection pattern on the projection plane (PE) decreases, as a distance from the viewpoint position of the observer to the certain part of the projection pattern increases (view of BI decreases as distance from the eyes of the observer passes position of BI towards PE where the viewer is located between BI and PE, see fig. 3)
Therefore, in view of Vargas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the light diffraction characteristic of Erdl according to the teachings of Vargas where the information being displayed as joining at the base end to the illuminated area and extending out from the illuminated area on a plane that is non-parallel to the projection plane and that stands up from the projection plane; and wherein the radiant intensity of a coherent light beam from the illumination device toward a certain point of the projection pattern is increased as a distance from the illumination device to the certain point increases, in order to improve or increase the resolution of the projected special effects [Vargas, 0092].
Drinkwater teaches the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction (horizontal direction, see fig. 2), and the element diffraction parts have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the second arrangement direction (vertical direction, see fig. 2) (see para [0178]).
Therefore, in view of Drinkwater, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the element diffraction parts to have different diffraction characteristics depending on a position in the first arrangement direction and a second arrangement direction, in order to enhance brightness of the device [Drinkwater, Abstract].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the diffraction characteristics in view of Erdl and Vargas and Drinkwater where the ratio of the certain part of the information actually observed by the observer with respect to a corresponding part of the projection pattern on the projection plane decreases, as a distance from the viewpoint position of the observer to the certain part of the projection pattern increases to improve or increase resolution of the image, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Erdl discloses the claimed invention except for a computer generated hologram. It has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Claim 26: Erdl is silent about a minimum value Xmin of radiances of the projection pattern when the projection pattern is observed from the viewpoint position, a maximum value Xmax of the radiances, and an average value Xave of the radiances satisfy following two expressions (1) and (2):(Xmax-Xave)/Xave < 0.4 ... expression (1), and(Xave-Xmin)/Xave 0.4 ... expression (2).
Vargas teaches adjusting (see para [0052]) the brightness of the light sources to calculate pixel intensities for the projected image (see para [0076] and [0092]).
Therefore, in view of Vargas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the intensity of the light source of Erdl where a minimum value Xmin of radiances of the projection pattern when the projection pattern is observed from the viewpoint position, a maximum value Xmax of the radiances, and an average value Xave of the radiances satisfy following two expressions (1) and (2): (Xmax - Xave)/Xave ≤ 0.4 … expression (1) and (Xave - Xmin)/Xave ≤ 0.4 … expression (2) to provide a uniform light projection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 27: Erdl is silent about a minimum value Ymin of irradiances at respective points on the projection pattern, a maximum value Ymax of the irradiances, and an average value Yave of the irradiances satisfy following two expressions (3) and (4): (Ymax-Yave)/Yave < 0.4 ... expression (3), and (Yave-Ymin)/Yave < 0.4 ... expression (4).
Vargas teaches adjusting (see para [0052]) the brightness of the light sources to calculate pixel intensities for the projected image (see para [0076] and [0092]).
Therefore, in view of Vargas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the intensity of the light source of Erdl where a minimum value Ymin of irradiances at respective points on the projection pattern, a maximum value Ymax of the irradiances, and an average value Yave of the irradiances satisfy following two expressions (3) and (4): (Ymax - Yave)/Yave ≤ 0.4 … expression (3) and (Yave- Ymin)/Yave ≤ 0.4 … expression (4) to provide a uniform light projection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 28: Erdl teaches a shaping optical system (3, fig. 1) that collimates the coherent light beam (light from 101, 102, 103, fig. 1) emitted from the light source (101, 102, 103),
wherein the diffractive optical element (2, fig. 1) diffracts the coherent light beam (diffraction effect, see para [0012]) collimated by the shaping optical system (3) and projects the projection pattern (SY, fig. 1).
Claim 29: Erdl teaches the shaping optical system (3, fig. 1) regulates a traveling direction (collimates light into 2, fig. 1) of the coherent light beam (light of 101, 102, 103, fig. 1) emitted from the light source (101, 102, 103) so as to suppress blurring of the projection pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23 and 24 has/have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 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 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.
/ZHENG SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875