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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/127,816 filed on 3/29/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yoneyama’s YL1/YIM ratio contradicts the first condition, ω > 40°, which is disclosed in Nagahara and Masui. Due to this, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable rationale to modify Nagahara and Masui’s ω values. Examiner argues that Yoneyama was not utilized in the Office Action dated 9/5/2025 to teach the claim limitation ω > 40°, it was only utilized to teach the claim limitation YL1/YIM < 1.76 in combination with Nagahara and Masui. Examiner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing the ratio between a distance from the optical axis to a chief beam corresponding to the maximum image height in an imaginary plane that is perpendicular to the optical axis and passes through a vertex of an enlargement-side lens surface of an enlargement-side lens that forms the first lens group and is located at a position closest to the enlargement side and a distance from an optical axis to a largest image height of the projection image formed at the image formation device, which functionally allows the rays to be more parallel to the main axis as they enter the projection system, improves the telecentricity at the reduction side and reduces parallax error, resulting in clearer images.
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahara (WO 2013157237 A1)(Embodiment 1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Yoneyama (US 6115194 A)(Embodiment 2).
Regarding claim 1, Nagahara (Embodiment 1) discloses a projection system, in at least Figure 1, for enlarging a projection image formed by an image formation device disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane (last paragraph of page 2 of translation states "In the projection display device, a light beam given image information on the image display surface 1 is incident on the projection lens via the glass block 2 and is arranged on the left side of the paper surface by the projection lens", page 2, paragraph 13 of translation states "the left side of the figure is the enlarged side and the right side is the reduced side", and page 3, paragraph 5 of translation states "This projection lens is advantageous for ... widening the angle", Figure 1) and projecting the enlarged image onto an enlargement-side conjugate plane (page 3, paragraph 13 of translation states "projection lens for projecting image information displayed on a light valve onto a screen. In FIG. 1, the left side of the figure is the enlarged side", Figure 1), the projection system comprising:
a first lens group (G1 "first lens group", G2 "second lens group", page 10, paragraph 5 of translation, Figure 1) having positive power (by calculation using values from table 1, f(G1,G2) = +3.166 and P = 1/f, so therefore P(G1,G2) = +0.316 which is positive and which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range), and an aperture stop (3 "aperture", first paragraph on page 11 of translation, Figure 1), and a second lens group (G3 "third lens group", page 10, paragraph 5 of translation) having positive power (page 10, paragraph 5 of translation states "third lens group having a positive refractive power") sequentially arranged from an enlargement side toward a reduction side (Figure 1),
a portion at the reduction side of a reduction-side lens that forms the second lens group and is located at a position closest to the reduction side is a telecentric portion (page 3, paragraph 3 of translation states “The reduction side of the entire system is configured to be telecentric.”), and
the projection system satisfies Conditional Expressions (1) and (2) below,
ω > 40° (table 23, 2ω = 84.7, so therefore ω = 42.35 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range)
where ω represents a maximum half angle of view of the overall projection system, YIM represents a distance from an optical axis to a largest image height of the projection image formed at the image formation device, and YL1 is a distance from the optical axis to a chief beam corresponding to the maximum image height in an imaginary plane that is perpendicular to the optical axis and passes through a vertex of an enlargement-side lens surface of an enlargement-side lens that forms the first lens group and is located at a position closest to the enlargement side.
However, Nagahara (Embodiment 1) does not disclose YL1/YIM < 1.76.
Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) teaches YL1/YIM < 1.76 (utilizing the ray diagram of Figure 2, the ratio of YL1/YIM can be determined. By measurement, YIM = 22 units and YL1 = 26 units, so therefore YL1/YIM = 1.18 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the projection system for enlarging a projection image formed by an image formation device disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane and projecting the enlarged image onto an enlargement-side conjugate plane of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) modified by YL1/YIM < 1.76, as taught by Yoneyama (Embodiment 2), in order to allow the rays to be more parallel to the main axis as they enter the projection system and therefore improve telecentricity at the reduction side.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
wherein the enlargement-side lens (L1, page 10, paragraph 6 of translation states "The first lens group G1 includes, in order from the magnification side, a lens L1", Figure 1) has negative power (by calculation using values from table 1, f(L1) = -13.69 and P = 1/f, so therefore P(L1) = -0.073 which is negative and which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range), and
the reduction-side lens (L14, page 3, paragraph 7 of translation states "the third lens group G3 can be considered to consist of eight lenses L7 to L14", Figure 1) has positive power (by calculation using values from table 1, f(L14) = +5.118 and P = 1/f, so therefore P(L14) = +0.195 which is positive and which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
wherein the first lens group (G1 “first lens group”, G2 “second lens group”) includes a plurality of negative lenses (by calculation using values from table 1, f(L1) = -13.691, f(L2) = -3.849, f(L3) = -2.594, f(L4) = -5.816) arranged in succession from a position closest to the enlargement side toward the reduction side (Figure 1), and
one of the plurality of negative lenses (L1, Figure 1) is an aspherical lens made of plastic (page 3, paragraph 8 of translation states “the most enlarged lens L1 of the entire projection lens system is made of a plastic material and is configured to be an aspheric plastic lens having at least one aspheric surface”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projection system satisfies all Conditional Expressions (3), (4), and (5) below,
BF/F > 2.0 (table 23, f = 1.000 and Bf = 2.678, so therefore BF/F = 2.678 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range)
-15.0 < Fls/F < -1.8 (L1, page 10, paragraph 6 of translation states "The first lens group G1 includes, in order from the magnification side, a lens L1", by calculation using values from table 1, Fls = f(L1) = -13.69, table 23, f = 1.000, so therefore Fls/F = -13.69 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range)
1.6 < Flf/F < 15.0 (L14, page 3, paragraph 7 of translation states "the third lens group G3 can be considered to consist of eight lenses L7 to L14", by calculation using values from table 1, Flf = f(L14) = 5.118, table 23, f = 1.000, so therefore Flf/F = 5.118 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range)
where F represents a focal length of the overall projection system, BF represents a back focal length in air, Fls represents a focal length of the enlargement-side lens (L1, page 10, paragraph 6 of translation states "The first lens group G1 includes, in order from the magnification side, a lens L1"), and Flf represents a focal length of the reduction-side lens (L14, page 3, paragraph 7 of translation states "the third lens group G3 can be considered to consist of eight lenses L7 to L14").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a projector (100 "projection display device", page 2, paragraph 13 of translation) comprising:
the projection system according to claim 1 (page 9, paragraph 10 of translation states “A projection display device 100 shown in FIG. 9 includes a projection lens 10” and page 2, paragraph 13 of translation states “This projection lens is mounted on a projection display device”); and
the image formation device that forms a projection image in the reduction-side conjugate plane of the projection system (last paragraph of page 9 – first paragraph of page 10 of translation states “Although FIG. 9 shows an example in which a transmissive display element is used as the light valve, the light valve provided in the projection display device of the present invention is not limited to this, and a reflective liquid crystal display element, DMD, or the like”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Nagahara (Embodiment 1) does not disclose wherein the projection system satisfies a Conditional Expression below,
YL1 / YIM < 1.60.
Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) teaches YL1/YIM < 1.60 (utilizing the ray diagram of Figure 2, the ratio of YL1/YIM can be determined. By measurement, YIM = 22 units and YL1 = 26 units, so therefore YL1/YIM = 1.18 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the projection system for enlarging a projection image formed by an image formation device disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane and projecting the enlarged image onto an enlargement-side conjugate plane of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) modified by YL1/YIM < 1.60, as taught by Yoneyama (Embodiment 2), in order to allow the rays to be more parallel to the main axis as they enter the projection system and therefore improve telecentricity at the reduction side.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Nagahara (Embodiment 1) does not disclose wherein the projection system satisfies a Conditional Expression below,
YL1 / YIM < 1.26.
Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) teaches YL1/YIM < 1.26 (utilizing the ray diagram of Figure 2, the ratio of YL1/YIM can be determined. By measurement, YIM = 22 units and YL1 = 26 units, so therefore YL1/YIM = 1.18 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the projection system for enlarging a projection image formed by an image formation device disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane and projecting the enlarged image onto an enlargement-side conjugate plane of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) modified by YL1/YIM < 1.26, as taught by Yoneyama (Embodiment 2), in order to allow the rays to be more parallel to the main axis as they enter the projection system and therefore improve telecentricity at the reduction side.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahara (WO 2013157237 A1)(Embodiment 1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Yoneyama (US 6115194 A)(Embodiment 2), and further in view of Nagatoshi (WO2014076962 A1)(Embodiment 4)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nagahara (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the projection system satisfies Conditional Expressions (6) and (7) below,
|Δvd| < 20.0 (table 1, vd1 = 57.58 and vd2 = 63.33, so therefore |Δvd| = 5.75 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range)
|Δnd| < 0.35 (table 1, nd1 = 1.49100 and nd2 = 1.61800, so therefore |Δnd| = 0.127 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range)
However, Nagahara (Embodiment 1) does not disclose wherein the first lens group includes a cemented doublet into which a first lens and a second lens are bonded to each other and Conditional Expression (8) below,
2.0 < Fc/F < 15.0
Nagatoshi (Embodiment 4) teaches wherein the first lens group (G1 “first lens group”, G2 “second lens group”) includes a cemented doublet into which a first lens (L1 “first lens”) and a second lens (L2 “second lens”) are bonded to each other (page 9, paragraph 14 of translation states "The first lens L1 and the second lens L2 are cemented", Figure 4) and Conditional Expression (8) below,
2.0 < Fc/F < 15.0 (by calculating using values from table 7, Fc = f(L1,L2) = 147.86, table 8, f = 10.00, so therefore Fc/f = 14.786 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cement the first and second lenses together in order to satisfy the conditional expression 2.0 < Fc/F < 15.0 in order to correct aberrations and improve imaging quality.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masui (US 20210286155 A1)(Embodiment 1), in view of Yoneyama (US 6115194 A)(Embodiment 2).
Regarding claim 1, Masui (Embodiment 1) discloses a projection system, in at least Figure 1, for enlarging a projection image formed by an image formation device (paragraph 0030 states “the opposite direction is the “reduction side”, that is, in the direction of the image display element (for example, a digital micromirror device) at which the original optical image is displayed on the image display surface (reduction-side image surface)”) disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane (paragraph 0008 states “a projection optical system projects, while enlarging, an image displayed on an image display surface”) and projecting the enlarged image onto an enlargement-side conjugate plane (paragraph 0030 states “the “enlargement side” is in the direction of the screen surface (enlargement-side image surface) on which the enlarged optical image is projected”), the projection system comprising:
a first lens group (G21, Gr2, Gr3, Gr4, Figure 1) having positive power (by calculation using values from table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, f(Gr1, Gr2, Gr3, Gr4) = +453.36 which is positive), and an aperture stop (“ST”, Figure 1), and a second lens group (Gr5, Gr6, Figure 1) having positive power (by calculation using values from table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, f(Gr5, Gr6) = +118.59 which is positive) sequentially arranged from an enlargement side toward a reduction side (Figure 1),
a portion at the reduction side (righthand side of Figure 1) of a reduction-side lens (table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, the reduction-side lens corresponds to surface 43 and surface 44) that forms the second lens group (Gr5, Gr6, Figure 1) and is located at a position closest to the reduction side (righthand side of Figure 1) is a telecentric portion (Figure 1 shows the central beams of light are parallel or substantially parallel to the optical axis between the reduction-side lens and the image display surface IM), and
the projection system satisfies Conditional Expressions (1) and (2) below,
ω = 38.412° (table in Example 1 entitled “Miscellaneous Data”, ω = 38.412)
where ω represents a maximum half angle of view of the overall projection system, YIM represents a distance from an optical axis to a largest image height of the projection image formed at the image formation device, and YL1 is a distance from the optical axis to a chief beam corresponding to the maximum image height in an imaginary plane that is perpendicular to the optical axis and passes through a vertex of an enlargement-side lens surface of an enlargement-side lens that forms the first lens group and is located at a position closest to the enlargement side.
Thus Masui (Embodiment 1) discloses the claimed invention except for ω > 40°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ω such that ω > 40°, 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 the current instance, ω is an art recognized results effective variable in that represents the angle of view as taught by Masui (paragraph 0045). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize ω because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Masui discloses a value of ω = 38.412 which is 3.97% away from the lower limit of the conditional expression.
However, Masui (Embodiment 1) does not disclose YL1/YIM < 1.76.
Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) teaches YL1/YIM < 1.76 (utilizing the ray diagram of Figure 2, the ratio of YL1/YIM can be determined. By measurement, YIM = 22 units and YL1 = 26 units, so therefore YL1/YIM = 1.18 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the projection system for enlarging a projection image formed by an image formation device disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane and projecting the enlarged image onto an enlargement-side conjugate plane of Masui (Embodiment 1) modified by YL1/YIM < 1.76, as taught by Yoneyama (Embodiment 2), in order to allow the rays to be more parallel to the main axis as they enter the projection system and therefore improve telecentricity at the reduction side.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Masui (Embodiment 1) and Yoneyama (Embodiment 2) disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
wherein the enlargement-side lens (table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, the enlargement-side lens corresponds to surface 1 and surface 2) has negative power (by calculation using values from table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, f(1,2) = -335.25 which is negative), and
the reduction-side lens (table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, the reduction-side lens corresponds to surface 43 and surface 44) has positive power (by calculation using values from table in Example 1 entitled “Surface Data”, f(43,44) = +189.01 which is positive).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872