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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
Examiner reminds the applicant that the applicant should specifically point out the support for any and all amendments and show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Claims 1, 3-13, 16, and 18-20 utilize single block/paragraph indents to separate the claim limitations…Accordingly, withdrawal of these objections is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Claim 1, as amended, does not properly set forth a plurality of elements or steps, wherein each element or step of the claim is separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 8-13, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The amended drawings are not of sufficient quality, for the ink used in the drawings is unclear (e.g., lines of the arrows in figs. 2 and 4 are of poor quality). Examiner reminds the applicant that “Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings;” See 37 CFR 1.84 (a)(1) and MPEP § 608. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8-13, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 utilizes single block/paragraph indents to separate the claim limitations. “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 112(d) and 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to Claims 18-20, the claims recite “The medium-free projection system according to claim 3…” (Claim 18), “The medium-free projection system according to claim 4…” (Claim 19), and “The medium-free projection system according to claim 5” (Claim 20), but Claims 3-5 have been cancelled from the instant application. Thus, Claims 18-20 fail to further limit the subject matter and include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend. Since the scope of the Claims cannot be ascertained, Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levis et al. JP 2002529769 A (herein after "Levis;" see machine translation) in view of Guo et al. WO 2019095661 A1 (herein after "Guo;" see machine translation) and Matsubara et al. US 7717573 B2 (herein after "US 7717573 B2").
With respect to Claim 1, Levis discloses a medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]), comprising:
a light source (arc lamp 10 of light engine; [0022]); and
a light homogenizing rod (elongated light pipe 15 comprising an entrance pupil 14, wherein light entering entrance pupil 14 is homogenized; [0024]),
a first Fresnel lens (Fresnel lens 20; [0023]),
a liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]) with a transmission function (efficient light transmission at image gate of LCD panel 21 via light pipe 15; [0023] & [0026]; light being transmitted through LCD panel 21 as seen in fig. 1),
a collimating optical element (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]), and
an imaging optical assembly (projection lens 23; [0023])
that are arranged in sequence along a light emergent direction (as seen in fig. 1), wherein a divergent beam (emitted from arc lamp 10, diverging before being reflected by reflector 11; [0022]; as seen in fig. 1) emitted from the light source ([0022]) is collimated (fig. 1) and homogenized by the light homogenizing rod (elongated light pipe 15 comprising an entrance pupil 14, wherein light entering entrance pupil 14 is homogenized; [0024]) and the first Fresnel lens (Fresnel lens 20; [0023]) and then serves as an incident light (fig. 1) of the liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]), and
the beam emitted (fig. 1) from the liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]), after passing through the collimating optical element (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]), is converged in a target region (fig. 1) by the imaging optical assembly (projection lens 23; [0023]) to image ([0023]), so that the beam at each point on an imaging plane (image gate; [0022-23]) fills an eye box (efficient light transmission without wasting light through spillover at the image gate, and thus, beam fills eye box; [0026]);
Levis does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the light source is an LED light source; the imaging optical assembly comprises a first reflecting mirror and a second reflecting mirror that are arranged in sequence along the light emergent direction, and the beam emitted from the collimating optical element is converged in the target region through the first reflecting mirror and the second reflecting mirror in sequence to image;
However, in another field of endeavor, Guo teaches a beam contraction device and laser projection apparatus (beam reduction device, laser light source and laser projection device comprising imaging element, such as an LCD; [0037], [0069]; fig. 8), wherein a lighting source (laser group 10; [0068]) includes LEDs (including LEDs; [0068]). Guo further teaches a first reflecting mirror (first concave reflector 401; [0069]) and second reflecting mirror (first convex reflector 402; [0069]) arranged in sequence along light emergent directions (as seen in fig. 8), and a beam emitting (fig. 8) from a collimating optical element (beam reduction device 40 for reducing and collimating the light emitted; [0067-69]) is converged in a target region (conversion optical path 30; [0067-69]) through the first reflecting mirror (via first concave reflector 401; [0069]) and the second reflecting mirror (via first convex reflector 402; [0069]) in sequence to image (conversion optical path 30 performs corresponding processing on received light to emit and irradiate light onto an imaging element, such as an LCD, and project the image on the screen through a projection lens; [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the projection system of Levis to include the technical features of a light source comprising LEDs and utilizing two reflecting mirrors to converge light within an optical assembly, for the purpose of emitting a beam of strong light, achieving beam reduction, and improving the collimation effect of a light beam, as taught by Guo ([0045], [0067-69]).
Levis in view of Guo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the liquid crystal display panel is inclined with respect to the optical axis of the LED light source; a surface formula of the first reflecting mirror and the second reflecting mirror is
z
=
c
r
2
1
+
1
-
(
1
+
k
)
c
2
r
2
+
∑
i
=
1
N
A
i
E
i
(
x
,
y
)
wherein in the surface formula, z is a rise, c is a curvature, k is a conic constant, Ai is an xy multinomial coefficient of an i-th term, and N is number of terms of xy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsubara teaches a projection display apparatus (col. 2, lines 64-67) comprising a liquid crystal panel (image forming device 2, image forming device being inclined, image forming device of projection display apparatus being a transmissive liquid crystal panel or reflective liquid crystal panel; col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15 and 45-60, col. 15, lines 44-55) being inclined with respect to the optical axis (as seen in fig. 3) of a light source (light source unit 1; col. 3, lines 45-60; as seen in fig. 3). Matsubara further teaches the shape of reflecting surfaces (31a to 33a; col. 8, lines 20-40; fig. 4) of multiple reflecting mirrors (second reflecting mirror 31 to fourth reflecting mirror 33; col. 8, lines 20-40; figs. 3-4) is expressed in a coordinate system according to the following equation:
z
=
c
r
2
1
+
1
-
(
1
+
k
)
c
2
r
2
+
∑
i
=
1
N
A
i
E
i
(
x
,
y
)
where r2 = x2 + y2, and wherein z represents "sag", k represents conic constant, c represents curvature (curvature radius R=1/c), Ai represents polynomial coefficient(s), and Ei represents polynomial(s) (col. 8, lines 20-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the projection system of Levis in view of Guo to include the technical features of an image forming device being inclined with respect to an optical axis of a light source and reflecting mirrors that are shaped by the standard aspheric surface sag equation, for the purpose of reducing differences between optical path lengths of a plurality of light beams emitted from an image forming device, providing sufficient clearances between a plurality of reflecting mirrors incorporated in a projection display apparatus and optical paths which are folded back by reflecting mirrors, and producing free-from reflecting surfaces that can be designed with greater latitude, as taught by Matsubara (col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15, col. 8, lines 20-26).
With respect to Claim 6, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1, wherein a diffusion film (plastic foil; [0023]) is provided at a light incident side (entrance face of LCD panel 21; [0023]) of the liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]; Levis).
With respect to Claim 8, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1, wherein the light homogenizing rod (elongated light pipe 15 comprising an entrance pupil 14, wherein light entering entrance pupil 14 is homogenized; [0024]) is a hollow square conical rod ([0024]; as seen in fig. 1),
an inner wall of the hollow square conical rod (fig. 1) is plated with a reflective film (inner reflective mirror wall; [0024]),
a top surface of the hollow square conical rod (fig. 1) is a light incident side (as seen in fig. 1, top square surface facing upside down being light incident; fig. 1; [0024]),
a bottom surface of the hollow square conical rod (fig. 1) is a light emergent side (as seen in fig. 1, bottom conical surface facing upside down being light emergent; fig. 1; [0024]), and
the top surface of the hollow square conical rod has an area less than that of the bottom surface of the hollow square conical rod (top square surface having area less than bottom conical surface of light pipe 15 as seen in fig. 1; [0024]; & light pipe gradually becomes larger towards exit pupil 16; [0025-26]; Levis).
With respect to Claim 9, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1, wherein the collimating optical element (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]) is an imaging lens ([0023]; fig. 1; Levis).
With respect to Claim 10, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 9, wherein the imaging lens ([0023]; fig. 1) is a spherical lens, an aspherical lens or a second Fresnel lens (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]; Levis).
With respect to Claim 11, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1, wherein the collimating optical element (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]) is a reflecting mirror ([0023]), and a surface of the reflecting mirror is a spherical surface, an aspherical surface, or a free curved surface (having concentric grooves replacing curved surface of a conventional lens; [0023]; Levis).
With respect to Claim 12, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]; Levis) according to claim 1.
Levis in view of Guo does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): further comprising a fold-back optical assembly, wherein the fold-back optical assembly is configured to fold an optical path.
However, Matsubara further teaches providing a projection display apparatus (col. 2, lines 64-67) having an image forming device which is inclined (image forming device 2, image forming device being inclined, image forming device of projection display apparatus being a transmissive liquid crystal panel or reflective liquid crystal panel; col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15 and 45-60, col. 15, lines 44-55) to provide sufficient clearances between a plurality of reflecting mirrors (second reflecting mirror 31 to fourth reflecting mirror 33; col. 8, lines 20-40; figs. 3-4) incorporated in the projection display apparatus (col. 2, lines 64-67) and optical paths (figs. 3-4) which are folded back on themselves by the reflecting mirrors (col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the projection system of Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara to further include the technical features of a fold-back optical assembly folding an optical path, for the purpose of providing sufficient clearances between a plurality of reflecting mirrors incorporated in a projection display apparatus and optical paths which are folded back by reflecting mirrors, as taught by Matsubara (col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15).
With respect to Claim 13, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara further teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]; Levis) according to claim 12, wherein the fold-back optical assembly (col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15; Matsubara) is one or more reflecting mirrors (second reflecting mirror 31 to fourth reflecting mirror 33; col. 8, lines 20-40; figs. 3-4; Matsubara), and the optical path (figs. 3-4) is folded by the reflecting mirror or mirrors (optical paths which are folded back on themselves by reflecting mirrors (col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15; Matsubara).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the projection system of Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara to further include the technical features of a fold-back optical assembly folding an optical path, for the purpose of providing sufficient clearances between a plurality of reflecting mirrors incorporated in a projection display apparatus and optical paths which are folded back by reflecting mirrors, as taught by Matsubara (col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-15).
With respect to Claim 18, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 3, wherein a diffusion film (plastic foil; [0023]) is provided at a light incident side (entrance face of LCD panel 21; [0023]) of the liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]; Levis).
With respect to Claim 19, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 4, wherein a diffusion film (plastic foil; [0023]) is provided at a light incident side (entrance face of LCD panel 21; [0023]) of the liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]; Levis).
With respect to Claim 20, Levis in view of Guo and Matsubara teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 5, wherein a diffusion film (plastic foil; [0023]) is provided at a light incident side (entrance face of LCD panel 21; [0023]) of the liquid crystal display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]; Levis).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hirata et al. JP 2009042454 A (see machine translation) discloses a liquid crystal display device and backlight projection unit, and electronic blackboard device using liquid crystal display device substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 22 May 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights