DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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.
4. Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6-7, the applicant has stated on page 10 of their arguments (see Remarks dated 05/14/2025) that claims 6 and 7 have been amended to indicate the base points related to Bf2 as a fourth base point & the base points related to Bf as a second base point, respectively. However, neither of claims 6 or 7 have been amended to reflect these changes. It is unclear whether applicant’s remarks are incorrect or the amended claims are incorrect. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret such that the amended claims 6-7 are incorrect.
Claims 14-15 inherit the issues of clarity posed by claims 6-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Atsuo (WO 2020110380 A1, of record) in view of Nagahara (US 9557537 B2, of record), and further in view of Schuck (US 20130113788 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Atsuo discloses a projection optical system (Abstract) that forms an intermediate image (Fig. 1, IM1) of an image displayed on an image display surface (Fig. 1, IM2) and forms a magnified image by projecting the intermediate image (Abstract), the projection optical system consisting of, in order from a reduction side to a magnification side along an optical path (Fig. 1, right-to-left),
a first optical system (Fig. 1, LN2) and a second optical system (Fig. 1, LN1),
wherein the first optical system consists of a group of lenses in the projection optical system (Fig. 1, LN2), the group of lenses being smallest in number among all groups of lenses in the projection optical system (Fig. 1, LN2 has 15 lenses & LN1 has 18 lenses) that:
are telecentric on the magnification side ([0033], “IM1 is substantially telecentric on the reduction side”), and
include an optical element closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system (Fig. 1, rightmost optical element of LN2),
wherein the first optical system is a coaxial system having a common first optical axis (Fig. 1, LN2), and
wherein the second optical system is a coaxial system having a common second optical axis (Fig. 1, LN1) and is telecentric on the reduction side ([0033]).
Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first optical system is non-telecentric on the reduction side.
However, Nagahara teaches a similar projection lens system having a variable zoom (Abstract), wherein a first optical system is non-telecentric on a reduction side (column 9 lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Atsuo and Nagahara such that the first optical system was non-telecentric on the reduction side, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Modified Atsuo fails to disclose wherein the first optical axis and the second optical axis are parallel to each other and are offset from each other in a direction perpendicular to the first optical axis.
However, Schuck teaches a similar projection lens system comprising multiple optical systems and an intermediate image, wherein a first optical axis and a second optical axis are parallel to each other and are offset from each other in a direction perpendicular to the first optical axis (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Atsuo and Schuck such that the first optical system and second optical system were offset from each other, motivated by reducing speckle ([0006]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Atsuo fails to disclose wherein a distance on the first optical axis from a reduction side focal position of the entire projection optical system as a first base point to a reduction side pupil position of the entire projection optical system is Exp,
a maximum image height on the reduction side of the projection optical system measured from the first optical axis is Ymax, and
a sign of the distance of Exp on the magnification side from the first base point is negative and a sign of the distance of Exp on the reduction side from the first base point is positive,
Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by
-5<Exp/Ymax<-0.5 (1).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Exp value of modified Atsuo such that -5<Exp/Ymax<-0.5 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Exp value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 3, modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein an air conversion distance on the first optical axis from a surface closest to the reduction side in the first optical system as a second base point to a reduction side focal position of the entire first optical system is Bf1,
an air conversion distance on the first optical axis from a surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system as the second base point to a reduction side focal position of the entire projection optical system is Bf,
a distance on the first optical axis from the reduction side focal position of the entire projection optical system as a first base point to a reduction side pupil position of the entire projection optical system is Exp, and
a sign of each distance of Bf1, Bf, and Exp on the magnification side from each base point is negative and a sign of the distance of Bf1, Bf, and Exp on the reduction side from each base point is positive,
Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by
-1.5<(Bf1-Bf-Exp)/Ymax<1.5 (2).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Exp value of modified Atsuo such that -1.5<(Bf1-Bf-Exp)/Ymax<1.5 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Exp value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 4, modified Atsuo discloses wherein a maximum image height on the reduction side of the projection optical system measured from the first optical axis is Ymax,
a focal length of the second optical system is f2,
a focal length of the entire projection optical system is f,
a distance in a direction of the second optical axis to a sagittal image plane at an image height of Ymax⨯|f2/f|⨯0.8 measured from the first optical axis on the reduction side in the second optical system in a case where a paraxial imaging position on the reduction side in the entire second optical system is set as a third base point in a state where the magnified image is located at infinity is Sr,
a distance in the direction of the second optical axis to the tangential image plane at the image height of Ymax⨯|f2/f|⨯0.8 on the reduction side in the second optical system in a case where the paraxial imaging position on the reduction side in the entire second optical system is set as the third base point in a state where the magnified image is located at infinity is Tr,
a sign of each distance of Sr and Tr on the magnification side from each base point is negative and a sign of the distance of Sr and Tr on the reduction side from each base point is positive, and
each value of f2 and f is set at a wide-angle end in a case where each optical system is a variable magnification optical system,
Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.47<Ymax/|f| (3) (Atsuo - Fig. 9, Ymax= 17.70; [0077], f= -11.434; giving 1.548).
Modified Atsuo fails to disclose wherein Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by 0<|(Sr+Tr)/2|/Ymax<0.1.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Sr and/or Tr values of modified Atsuo such that 0<|(Sr+Tr)/2|/Ymax<0.1 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Sr and/or Tr values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 5, modified Atsuo discloses wherein a focal length of the second optical system is f2,
a focal length of the entire projection optical system is f, and
each value of f2 and f is set at a wide-angle end in a case where each optical system is a variable magnification optical system,
Conditional Expression (5) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.6<|f2/f|<4 (5) (Atsuo - [0075], f2= 14.385; [0077], f= -11.434; giving 1.2581).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, modified Atsuo fails to disclose wherein an air conversion distance on the second optical axis from a surface closest to the reduction side in the second optical system as a base point to a reduction side focal position of the second optical system is Bf2,
a focal length of the entire projection optical system is f,
a sign of the distance of Bf2 on the magnification side from the base point is negative and a sign of the distance of Bf2 on the reduction side from the base point is positive, and
a value of f is set at a wide-angle end in a case where the projection optical system is a variable magnification optical system,
Conditional Expression (6) is satisfied, which is represented by
-5<Bf2/|f|<5 (6).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Bf2 value of modified Atsuo such that -5<Bf2/|f|<5 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Bf2 value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Atsuo fails to disclose wherein an air conversion distance on the first optical axis from a surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system as a base point to a reduction side focal position of the entire projection optical system is Bf,
a focal length of the entire projection optical system is f,
a sign of the distance of Bf on the magnification side from the base point is negative and a sign of the distance of Bf on the reduction side from the base point is positive, and
a value of f is set at a wide-angle end in a case where the projection optical system is a variable magnification optical system,
Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.5<Bf/|f|<10 (7).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Bf value of modified Atsuo such that 0.5<Bf/|f|<10 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Bf value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 8, modified Atsuo discloses wherein the intermediate image is formed between the first optical system and the second optical system (Atsuo - Fig. 1, IM1 is between LN2 and LN1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein Conditional Expression (1-1) is satisfied, which is represented by -4<Exp/Ymax<-1 (1-1).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Exp value of modified Atsuo such that -4<Exp/Ymax<-1 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Exp value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 10, modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein Conditional Expression (2-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0<(Bf1-Bf-Exp)/Ymax<1 (2-1).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Exp value of modified Atsuo such that 0<(Bf1-Bf-Exp)/Ymax<1 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Exp value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 11, modified Atsuo discloses wherein Conditional Expression (3-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.84<Ymax/|f| (3-1) (Atsuo - Fig. 9, Ymax= 17.70; [0077], f= -11.434; giving 1.548).
Regarding claim 12, modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein Conditional Expression (4-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0<|(Sr+Tr)/2|/Ymax<0.05 (4-1).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Sr and/or Tr values of modified Atsuo such that 0<|(Sr+Tr)/2|/Ymax<0.05 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Sr and/or Tr value(s) of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 13, modified Atsuo discloses wherein Conditional Expression (5-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
1<|f2/f|<3 (5-1) (Atsuo - [0075], f2= 14.385; [0077], f= -11.434; giving 1.2581).
Regarding claim 14, modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein Conditional Expression (6-1) is satisfied, which is represented by -3<Bf2/|f|<3 (6-1).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Bf2 value of modified Atsuo such that -3<Bf2/|f|<3 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Bf2 value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 15, modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein Conditional Expression (7-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.8<Bf/|f|<5 (7-1).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the Bf value of modified Atsuo such that 0.8<Bf/|f|<5 was satisfied, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the Bf value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 16, modified Atsuo discloses a projection type display device comprising:
an image display element that outputs the image (Atsuo - claim 12); and
the projection optical system according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Atsuo discloses a projection optical system (Abstract) comprising:
an image display element that outputs an image (Fig. 1, IM2 & claim 12); and
a projection optical system (Abstract) that forms an intermediate image of the image (Fig. 1, IM1) and forms a magnified image by projecting the intermediate image (Abstract),
wherein the projection optical system consists of a first optical system (Fig. 1, LN2) and a second optical system (Fig. 1, LN1), in order from a reduction side to a magnification side along an optical path (Fig. 1, right-to-left),
wherein the first optical system consists of a group of lenses in the projection optical system (Fig. 1, LN2), the group of lenses being smallest in number among all groups of lenses in the projection optical system (Fig. 1, LN2 has 15 lenses & LN1 has 18 lenses) that:
are telecentric on the magnification side ([0033], “IM1 is substantially telecentric on the reduction side”), and
include an optical element closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system (Fig. 1, rightmost optical element of LN2),
wherein the first optical system is a coaxial system having a common first optical axis (Fig. 1, LN2), and
wherein the second optical system is a coaxial system having a common second optical axis (Fig. 1, LN1) and is telecentric on the reduction side ([0033]).
wherein a relative position of the first optical axis and the second optical axis is variable (Abstract).
Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first optical system is non-telecentric on the reduction side.
However, Nagahara teaches a similar projection lens system having a variable zoom (Abstract), wherein a first optical system is non-telecentric on a reduction side (column 9 lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Atsuo and Nagahara such that the first optical system was non-telecentric on the reduction side, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Modified Atsuo fails to explicitly disclose wherein a relative position of the first optical axis and the second optical axis is variable in a direction other than a direction along the first optical axis and a second along the second optical axis.
However, Schuck teaches a similar projection lens systems comprising multiple optical systems and an intermediate image, wherein a relative position of a first optical axis and a second optical axis is variable in a direction other than a direction along the first optical axis and a direction along the second optical axis (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Atsuo and Schuck such that the first optical system and second optical system were variable in a direction other than a direction along the first optical axis and a direction along the second optical axis, motivated by reducing speckle ([0006]).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights