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 .
Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
The reply filed on 03 December 2025 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s):
The specification, and any amendments for applications, except as provided for in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, must have text written plainly and legibly either by a typewriter or machine printer in a non-script type font (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, or Courier, preferably a font size of 12) lettering style having capital letters which should be at least 0.3175 cm. (0.125 inch) high, but may be no smaller than 0.21 cm. (0.08 inch) high (e.g., a font size of 6) in portrait orientation and presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition; and only a single column of text. See 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b).
Reference is made to Drawings dated 03 December 2025. See MPEP § 608.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant submits amended FIGS. 1 and 3 herewith, the amendments to which address the aforementioned objections. Withdrawal of the objections is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. The amended drawings are not of sufficient quality, for the reference numerals/numbers in figures 1 and 3 are still illegible and unclear. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. See Drawing objections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Namely, Levis fails to describe at least the above-emphasized limitations…[t]hat is, the light pipe 15 is an independent and complete light processing unit that does not utilize subsequent light homogenizing elements, and undertakes the composite functions of light homogenization, heat dissipation, light spot shaping, and angle adjustment on its own," the Examiner traverses. Counsel's assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Levis discloses a light homogenizing rod (elongated light pipe 15 comprising an entrance pupil 14, wherein light entering entrance pupil 14 is homogenized; [0024]). See Claim 1 § 103 rejection below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The combination of the light homogenizing rod and the first Fresnel lens…and its function is different from that of the light pipe and the first Fresnel lens of Levis," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, Examiner notes that when the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP § 2114.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Therefore, Levis fails to disclose the "light homogenizing rod…wherein a divergent beam emitted from the light source is collimated and homogenized by the light homogenizing rod and the first Fresnel lens" for at least the reasons described above," the Examiner traverses. See previous arguments above.
In response to the applicant's argument that "That is, the thin film crystal liquid crystal display panel 15 having a thin film transistor and a liquid crystal display panel can generate original image signals, load the image onto the beam, and output the imaging beam carrying image information. The imaging beam carrying image information passes through the collimating optical element and is then converged by the imaging optical assembly to form the image in the target area, thereby enabling medium-free imaging which the system described in Levis is unable to perform. Therefore, Levis fails to disclose "the thin film crystal liquid crystal display screen" as recited in independent claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Furthermore, 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. See Claim 1 § 103 rejection below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "However, as described in the specification, the collimating…thin film crystal liquid crystal display screen 15 to be within a range of less than 4 degrees, that is, the main lights of various fields of view are nearly parallel," the Examiner traverses. The claim limitation “wherein the collimating optical element is configured to enable an angle difference of main lights of a plurality of fields of view of the beam emitted from the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel to be within a range of less than 4 degrees” does not have a clear, objective meaning because the phrase “main lights” is not a recognized or defined optical term, and the claim does not specify how these lights are identified or measured (e.g., whether they refer to chief rays, peak intensity rays, etc.). Examiner notes that there is no defined reference, measurement method, or structural disclosure, and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the limitation with reasonable certainty. See § 112(b) and 103 rejections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Although the present application discloses that the collimating optical element can be a Fresnel lens, as noted above, the second Fresnel lens described in Levis fails to control the angle difference of various fields of view of the beam to be within a 4 degree difference. Rather, as noted above and shown for example in FIG. 2, Fresnel lens 22 refracts a diverging beam of light to converge onto projection lens 23 (as opposed to being within 4 degrees)," the Examiner traverses. 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 the same embodiment applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to the applicant's argument that "Therefore, Levis fails to disclose the limitation of "wherein the collimating optical element is configured to enable an angle difference of main lights of various fields of view of the beam emitted from the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel to be within a range of less than 4 degrees" as recited in claim 1," the Examiner traverses. See previous arguments above.
In response to the applicant's argument that "However, Applicant does not necessarily concur with the interpretation of the previously presented dependent claims as set forth in the Office Action, nor does Applicant concur that the basis for rejection of any of the previously presented dependent claims is proper," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds that applicant that [i]f a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). See MPEP § 2145. 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.
Drawings
The amended drawings are not of sufficient quality, for the reference numerals/numbers in figures 1 and 3 are still illegible and unclear. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the collimating optical element being configured to enable an angle difference of main lights of a plurality of fields of view of the beam emitted from the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel to be within a range of less than 4 degrees must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is a lack of antecedent basis for "thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel," for “transistor” is never recited in the as-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-13, 16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3-13, 16, and 18-20 utilize 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(b)
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 1, 3-13, 16, and 18-20 are 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the sentences recite “wherein the collimating optical element is configured to enable an angle difference of main lights of a plurality of fields of view of the beam emitted from the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel to be within a range of less than 4 degrees” which seems to be ambiguous in definition. The term “main lights” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “main lights” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The claim limitation “wherein the collimating optical element is configured to enable an angle difference of main lights of a plurality of fields of view of the beam emitted from the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel to be within a range of less than 4 degrees” does not have a clear, objective meaning because the phrase “main lights” is not a recognized or defined optical term, and the claim does not specify how these lights are identified or measured (e.g., whether they refer to chief rays, peak intensity rays, etc.). Examiner notes that there is no defined reference, measurement method, or structural disclosure, and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the limitation with reasonable certainty. Since the scope cannot be ascertained, the claim limitation is rendered indefinite under § 112(b). The collimating optical element, angle difference, plurality of fields of view, the beam, and the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel have also been rendered by the use of the term “main lights.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a medium-free projection system.
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.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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, and 8-11 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 another embodiment of Levis.
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 thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) 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 thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]), and
the beam emitted (fig. 1) from the thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) 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]);
The first embodiment of Levis does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the collimating optical element is configured to enable an angle difference of main lights of a plurality of fields of view of the beam emitted from the thin film transistor liquid crystal display panel to be within a range of less than 4 degrees.
However, in another embodiment (fig. 26), Levis further teaches an LPI light engine as a collimating optical element that changes the f# of the cone angle of the angular population between the incoming and outgoing beams, wherein the angular population acceptance angle of an LCD panel is limited to less than 10 degrees and the angular population is limited to within ±6 degrees (i.e., degrees within a set of {-6, 6}; [0052-53]). Levis further teaches the tapered shape of the LPI light engine reducing the maximum angle of the incoming angular population, resulting in an outgoing light beam with a low angular population (at least 80% is less than 10 degrees; [0052-53]). The emitted beam from the LCD panel has a low angular spread, and thus, ensures that the angle difference between main rays of multiple FOV is within a small range (e.g., less than 4 degrees).
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 liquid crystal display/film projector system of the first embodiment of Levis to include the technical feature of an LPI light engine utilized as a collimating optical element, for the purpose of providing the maximum possible amount of light collected from a light source through an image gate where an LCD panel is placed at a proper angular population, as taught by Levis ([0053]).
Examiner notes that when the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'does not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962); e.g., liquid crystal film material for an LCD display screen and/or panel being formed of “thin film” material). See MPEP § 2131.02(III).
With respect to Claim 6, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) 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 thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]).
With respect to Claim 8, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) 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]).
With respect to Claim 9, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) 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).
With respect to Claim 10, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) 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]).
With respect to Claim 11, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) 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]).
Claims 3, 7, 16, and 18 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 another embodiment of Levis and Guo et al. WO 2019095661 A1 (herein after "Guo;" see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 3, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1,
Levis does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the light source (arc lamp 10 of light engine; [0022]) is an LED light source.
However, in another field of endeavor, Guo teaches a beam contraction device and laser projection apparatus (fig. 1), wherein a lighting source includes LEDs ([0068]).
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 feature of a light source comprising LEDs, for the purpose of emitting a beam of strong light and achieving beam reduction, as taught by Guo ([0068]).
With respect to Claim 7, embodiments of Levis in view of Guo teach the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 3, wherein an optical axis ([0025]; fig. 1) of the LED light source (light engine comprising arc lamp 10; [0022] of Levis modified by lighting source including LEDs; [0068] of Guo) and an optical axis ([0025]; fig. 1) of the thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]) form a certain included angle (fig. 1; [0021]).
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 feature of a light source comprising LEDs, for the purpose of emitting a beam of strong light and achieving beam reduction, as taught by Guo ([0068]).
With respect to Claim 16, embodiments of Levis in view of Guo teach the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 3.
Levis does not appear to teach the following limitations: wherein the imaging optical assembly (projection lens 23; [0023]) 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 (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]) is converged in the target region through the first reflecting mirror and the second reflecting mirror in sequence to image.
However, Guo further teaches a beam contraction device and laser projection apparatus (fig. 1) comprising a first concave reflecting mirror 100 and first convex reflecting mirror 200 ([0043]; fig. 2), wherein the focus of both mirrors are set at the same position and light emitted by a laser group 10 is converged to the surface of the convex reflecting mirror 200 by the first concave reflecting mirror 100 ([0045]).
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 Levi in view of Guo to include the technical feature of utilizing two reflecting mirrors and with their focus set at the same position within an optical assembly, for the purpose of improving the collimation effect of a light beam, as taught by Guo ([0045]).
With respect to Claim 18, embodiments of Levis in view of Guo teach 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 thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]).
Claims 4, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levis et al. JP 2002529769 A (herein after "Levis;" see machine translation; embodiment figs. 1 and 26) in view of another embodiment of Levis.
With respect to Claim 4, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1.
Levis does not appear to teach the following limitations: wherein the imaging optical assembly (projection lens 23; [0023]) 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 (Fresnel lens 22; [0023]) is converged in the target region through the first reflecting mirror and the second reflecting mirror in sequence to image.
However, in another embodiment, Levis further teaches an alternative optical system (utilized in conjunction with other light pipe embodiments, e.g., light pipe 15 of the first embodiment; [0083]) comprising two mirrors 52a and 53a that are arranged along a light emergent direction (after converted beam CP; fig. 36). The converted light beam (CP; fig. 36) converges through the two mirrors 52a and 53a and reaches the LCD plate 58a for imaging (as seen in fig. 36; [0083]).
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 projector system of the first embodiment of Levis to include the technical feature of utilizing multiple reflecting mirrors, for the purpose of making optical path lengths of an incident beam and emitted beam equal to each other, as taught by Levis ([0083]).
With respect to Claim 12, Levis (fig. 1) in view of another embodiment of Levis (fig. 26) teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 1.
Levis does not appear to teach the following limitation: further comprising a fold-back optical assembly, wherein the fold-back optical assembly is configured to fold an optical path.
However, in another embodiment, Levis further teaches an alternative optical system (utilized in conjunction with other light pipe embodiments, e.g., light pipe 15 of the first embodiment; [0083]) comprising two mirrors 50a and 51a configured to fold an optical path of an incident light beam S ([0084]; as seen in fig. 1).
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 projector system of the first embodiment of Levis to include the technical feature of utilizing multiple reflecting mirrors within a fold-back optical assembly, for the purpose of making optical path lengths of an incident beam and emitted beam equal to each other and increasing the optical path length of a light beam, as taught by Levis ([0083]).
With respect to Claim 13, the first embodiment in view of embodiment fig.36 of Levis teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 12, wherein the fold-back optical assembly (fig. 36) is one or more reflecting mirrors (two mirrors 50a and 51a; [0084]), and the optical path is folded by the reflecting mirror or mirrors (optical path length of the S beam folded by mirrors 50a and 51a; [0084]; fig. 1).
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 projector system of the first embodiment of Levis to include the technical feature of utilizing multiple reflecting mirrors within a fold-back optical assembly, for the purpose of making optical path lengths of an incident beam and emitted beam equal to each other and increasing the optical path length of a light beam, as taught by Levis ([0083]).
With respect to Claim 19, the first embodiment in view of embodiment figs. 26 and 36 of Levis 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 thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]).
Claims 5 and 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 other embodiments of Levis as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Guo et al. WO 2019095661 A1 (herein after "Guo;" see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 5, the first embodiment in view of embodiment figs. 26 and 36 of Levis teaches the medium-free projection system (liquid crystal display/film projector system; fig. 1; [0022] & [0041]) according to claim 4.
The first embodiment in view of embodiment figs. 26 and 36 of Levis does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein a surface of the first reflecting mirror and a surface of the second reflecting mirror are both free curved surfaces.
However, in another field of endeavor, Guo teaches focal-variable shrinking devices provided in a beam contraction device and laser projection apparatus (fig. 1, 13, & 17), wherein a convex sub-reflector 24 ([0110]) and concave secondary reflector 29 ([0132]) have variable curvature, and thus, free curved surfaces ([0110] & [0132]).
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 projector systems of Levis to include the technical feature of reflecting mirrors having variable curvature, for the purpose of enabling change in focus ([0110]) and achieving a focus effect of a light beam, as taught by Guo ([0132]).
With respect to Claim 20, the first embodiment in view of embodiment figs. 26 and 36 of Levis 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 thin film (liquid crystal film material being inherently thin; [0023]; fig. 1) transistor liquid crystal (active matrix consists of many tiny pixels that can be switched on/off, liquid crystal is held between transparent plates, active matrix comprising transistor(s); [0008-10]) display panel (LCD panel 21; [0023]).
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 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 17 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872