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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 6-9 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 10-15 are amended. Claim 16 is new. Claims 1-5 and 10-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 106647127A).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an optical system (illustrated in fig. 1C) comprising: a coherent light source (laser 101a of fig. 1C); a fixed diffusion plate (transmissive diffusing plate 111 of fig. 1C) and a relative movement diffusion plate (transmission rotating diffuser 105 of fig. 1C) which intersect with a traveling direction of light emitted from the coherent light source (illustrated in fig. 1C), an integrator lens (para. 0093; the light homogenizing component 104 is preferably a fly-eye lens array), wherein the fixed diffusion plate (111) emits a light having a rectangular shape from an incident light (although not explicitly disclosed rectangular shape distribution can be implied based on paras. 0079-0080, which disclose the distribution of light as it is emitted from the light rod 104 and the rotating diffuser 105. Shown in fig. 5, is the distribution of light as it is emitted from the light rod 104 and fig. 6 discloses the distribution of light as it is emitted from the rotating diffuser 105 further, there are no intervening optical elements that would alter the shape of the rectangular distribution (rectangular distribution or "flat-top"; para. 0080); therefore, it is logical to imply the shape of the light passing through the diffusion plate 111 is rectangular), and in the relative movement diffusion plate (105), a diffusion surface of the light moves relative to the incident light (pg. 6 5th para.; diffuser of the movement 105 is a transmission member, preferably, may be provided with a diffusion micro-structure on the light surface and the exit light surface); the fixed diffusion plate (111) is a microlens array in which a plurality of microlenses are arranged in a matrix in a plan view (para. 0087; the phase plate or diffusion plate has a microstructure and para. 0065; discloses microstructure may be a plurality of sawtooth protrusions, or circular protrusions, or other irregular shapes, which are not specifically limited herein. The function of the abovementioned microstructure is to scatter the incident laser. Since the reflecting surface is non-planar, the diffusion angle and direction of the reflected laser beam are diverse, which is conducive to forming a plurality of random spatial phases to weaken the coherence of the laser beam. The shapes of the microstructures on the two faces can be the same or different. The microstructures of the two surfaces can have different granularities when specifically set, thereby forming two different scattering surfaces. In practical applications, the greater the difference in the scattering/diffusion of the light beam by the two scattering surfaces, the better, which is conducive to forming a diversity of light beam divergence angles and generating multiple random phases also, illustrated in fig. 2C).
Li fails to teach wherein a diffusion angle of the fixed diffusion plate is qa and wherein a diffusion angle of the relative movement diffusion plate is qb, and wherein qb/qa < 0.76 is satisfied; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application in order to reduce or eliminate the projection image of the speckle effect; therefore, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, Eli f.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein the fixed diffusion plate (111) and the relative movement diffusion plate (105) are arranged in the order of the fixed diffusion plate and the relative movement diffusion plate in the traveling direction of the light (illustrated in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses an optical system (illustrated in fig. 1C) comprising: a coherent light source (laser 101a of fig. 1C); a fixed diffusion plate (transmissive diffusing plate 111 of fig. 1C) and a relative movement diffusion plate (transmission rotating diffuser 105 of fig. 1C). Li fails to teach wherein the fixed diffusion plate and the relative movement diffusion plate are arranged in the order of the relative movement diffusion plate and the fixed diffusion plate in the traveling direction of the light; however, rearranging the fixed diffuser and the rotatable diffuser would not yield a different result therefore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses wherein the relative movement diffusion plate (105) is a rotating diffusion plate (para. 0094; rotating diffuser 105) that is rotatable and a rotating surface of the relative movement diffusion plate intersects with the traveling direction of the light (illustrated in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses wherein, in the relative movement diffusion plate (105), convex lenses (illustrated in fig. 2C) or concave lenses with random radii of curvature are randomly disposed on the diffusion surface (para. 0065; The microstructure may be a plurality of sawtooth protrusions, or circular protrusions, or other irregular shapes, which are not specifically limited herein. The function of the abovementioned microstructure is to scatter the incident laser. Since the reflecting surface is non-planar, the diffusion angle and direction of the reflected laser beam are diverse, which is conducive to forming a plurality of random spatial phases to weaken the coherence of the laser beam. The shapes of the microstructures on the two faces can be the same or different. The microstructures of the two surfaces can have different granularities when specifically set, thereby forming two different scattering surfaces. In practical applications, the greater the difference in the scattering/diffusion of the light beam by the two scattering surfaces, the better, which is conducive to forming a diversity of light beam divergence angles and generating multiple random phases.).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Li discloses a display device comprising the optical system (laser projection system of fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses an illumination device (blue laser 101a, red laser 101b, green laser 101c and phase plate 103 and homogenizer 104 diffusers 111 and 105) comprising the optical system (illustrated in fig. 1C).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 106647127A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyasaka et al. (US PG Pub. 20150293271).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses a transmissive diffusion plate (111).
Li fails to teach wherein ridgelines are formed between the microlenses, and adjacent ridgelines are not parallel to each other.
Miyasaka discloses wherein ridgelines are formed between the microlenses (concave 12 of fig. 1A and 1B), and adjacent ridgelines (boundary area between concave portions) are not parallel to each other (illustrated in figs. 1A and 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify fixed microlens array of Li with the microlens arrangement of Miyasaka in order to sufficiently correct the intensity distribution of a beam flux (Miyasaka; para. 0006).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses a transmissive diffusion plate (111).
Li fails to teach wherein ridgelines are formed between the microlenses, and height and direction of the ridgelines are irregular.
Miyasaka discloses wherein ridgelines are formed between the microlenses (concave 12 of fig. 1A and 1B), and height and direction of the ridgelines are irregular (illustrated in fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify fixed microlens array of Li with the microlens arrangement of Miyasaka in order to sufficiently correct the intensity distribution of a beam flux (Miyasaka; para. 0006).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses a transmissive diffusion plate (111).
Li fails to teach wherein a radius of curvature of each of the microlens of the plurality of microlenses is pseudo-random or random.
Miyasaka discloses wherein a radius of curvature of each of the of the plurality of microlenses is pseudo-random or random (illustrated in figs. 1A and 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify fixed microlens array of Li with the microlens arrangement of Miyasaka in order to sufficiently correct the intensity distribution of a beam flux (Miyasaka; para. 0006).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses an optical system (illustrated in fig. 1C) comprising: a coherent light source (laser 101a of fig. 1C); a fixed diffusion plate (transmissive diffusing plate 111 of fig. 1C) and a relative movement diffusion plate (transmission rotating diffuser 105 of fig. 1C) which intersect with a traveling direction of light emitted from the coherent light source (illustrated in fig. 1C).
Li fails to explicitly teach wherein the microlens array has basic cell regions, and the basic cell regions are bounded by: i.) a plurality of virtual column lines (Vc) each of which passes through an average position in a row direction of-centers of the microns arranged in a column direction among the plurality of microlenses and extends in the column direction and ii.) a plurality of virtual row lines (Vr) each of which position in a column direction of centers of the microlenses arranged in a row direction among the plurality of microlenses and extends in the row direction: and a ratio of a long side to a short side of the integrator lens is substantially the same as a ratio of a long side to a short side of each of the basic cell regions.
Miyasaka discloses wherein the microlens array (microlens array 513 of fig. 54A) has basic cell regions (lens parts 522 of fig. 54A), and the basic cell regions are bounded by: i) a plurality of virtual column lines (Vc) each of which passes through an average position in a row direction of-centers of the microns arranged in a column direction among the plurality of microlenses and extends in the column direction (shown below in the examiners illustration of fig. 54A) and ii) a plurality of virtual row lines (Vr) each of which position in a column direction of centers of the microlenses arranged in a row direction among the plurality of microlenses and extends in the row direction (shown below in the examiners illustration of fig. 54A): and a ratio of a long side to a short side of the integrator lens is substantially the same as a ratio of a long side to a short side of each of the basic cell regions (shown above in the examiners illustration of fig. 54A the ratio is 1:1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify fixed microlens array of Li with the microlens arrangement of Miyasaka in order to sufficiently correct the intensity distribution of a beam flux (Miyasaka; para. 0006).
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 DANELL L OWENS whose telephone number is (571)270-5365. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm M-F.
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 571-272-2303. 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.
/DANELL L OWENS/Examiner, Art Unit 2882 24 April 2026
/TOAN TON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights