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 .
Acknowledgement made of amendment filed 8/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-10, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagate et al. (US 2008/0291405 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15, Nagate teaches a light source device (53, figure 1);
An image generation optical system (54, figure 1) that generates image light by modulating light from the light source device on a basis of an inputted image signal;
A projection unit (55, figure 1) that projects projection light generated by the image generation optical system, wherein
The light source device includes
A light source section including one or more solid state light sources (paragraph 0052); and
A control unit (40, 44, figure 1) that controls driving of the one or more solid state light sources to control luminance for a predetermined time after activation of the light source section, wherein the control unit has a plurality of control modes (S140, S190, figure 2) including a second control mode (S190, figure 2), in which after activation of the light source section at a third luminance value (S140, figure 2), the luminance is increased by an operation of a user (S180, figure 2), which provides the user with increased control over photobiological hazard (paragraph 0069-0070), to a second luminance higher than the third luminance value (normal light amount, S190, figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Nagate teaches the control unit has as the plurality control modes, a third control mode (S140, figure 2) in which the light source section the predetermined time after the activation of the light source section is driven at a value lower than a maximum luminance of the light source section.
Regarding claim 8, Nagate teaches wherein the predetermined time refers to a time of one second or longer after the activation of the light source section (paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 9, Nagate teaches the one or more solid state light sources includes a semiconductor laser (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 13, Nagate teaches the light source section the predetermined time after the activation of the light source section is constantly driven at a value less than maximum luminance of the light source section (paragraph 0060, first light intensity).
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) 2, 4, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagate et al. (US 2008/0291405 A1) in view of Shimizu (US 2016/0211648 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Nagate teaches the control unit includes a power supply circuit (20, figure 1 52, figure 1), and
The control unit controls the luminance for the predetermined time after the activation of the light source section by controlling an amount of currents to be supplied from the power supply circuit to the one or more solid state light sources (implicit that power supply would regulate the current of the light source inasmuch as current is directly tied to light output in solid state light sources).
Nagate does not specify performing pulse width modulation control on power to be supplied to the one or more solid state light sources.
Shimizu teaches the control unit includes a power supply circuit (inherent, the light source has to have a power supply in order to induce a current to flow through the light source); and
And the control unit controls the luminance for the predetermined time after the activation of the light source section by controlling an amount of currents to be supplied from the power supply circuit to the one or more solid state light sources and performing pulse width modulation control on the power to be supplied to the one or more solid state light sources (see figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Nagate to use the graduated control of the light source of Shimizu in order to extend the life of the light source (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 4 and 11, Nagate does not teach the control unit has as the plurality of control modes, a first control mode in which the luminance is gradually increased from a first luminance value to a second luminance value for the predetermined time after the activation of the light source section.
Shimizu teaches a first control mode in which the luminance is gradually increased from a first luminance value to a second luminance value for the predetermined time after the activation of the light source section (the current will control luminance in figure 6, nevertheless figure 2 shows that the output at L1 which corresponds to current A2 is higher than output of L2 which corresponds to current A1, see paragraph 0051, over T1 to T2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Nagate to use the graduated control of the light source of Shimizu in order to extend the life of the light source (paragraph 0007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagate et al. (US 2008/0291405 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nagate teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the luminance of the light source section immediately after the activation of the light source section is 1000 lm or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the output of the laser immediately after activation to be 1000 lm or less, 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.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Nagate to make the light source upon activation produce less than 1000 lm of light in order to prevent damage to the eyes of the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 10/11/2025