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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 09/03/2025 which amended claims 1 and 5-6 and added new claims 7-8. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application for patent.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Output Unit in claim 3
Spatial Light Modulation Unit in claim 3
Time Modulation Unit in claim 3
Correction Unit in claim 4
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurozuka (US 2012/0169752) in view of Smits (US 2021/0271158).
Regarding Claims 1, 5 and 6, Kurozuka discloses a control device (Figure 1; Display Controller 4, Frame Buffer 5 and Drive Controller 6) comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 1; Display Controller 4 and Drive Controller 6; Paragraph [0042]; wherein it is disclosed that the display controller 4 and the drive controller 6 may be constituted of e.g. a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory) for storing a program or programs, a RAM (Random Access Memory) for storing a program or programs and/or data at the time of executing various processings, an input-output interface and a bus for connecting the CPU, the ROM, the RAM, the input-output interface, all of which are not shown) configured to:
in a case where an electromagnetic wave (Figure 1; Laser Beam 2) which is spatially modulated according to a Lissajous curve (see Figures 3 and 4) is scanned and an intensity of the electromagnetic wave (Figure 1; Laser Beam 2) is time-modulated according to an image formed for each partial region (see Figure 4; wherein the partial region corresponds to each node of the pixel grid pattern 42) divided from a scanning region of the electromagnetic wave to form the image (see Figures 1, 3 and 4; Paragraphs [0043] and [0051]; wherein it is disclosed that the scanning mirror 3 is a two-axis resonant mirror which is resonantly driven in two directions i.e. a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and is configured such that a scanning beam forms a Lissajous pattern, wherein the display controller 4 modulates the emission intensity of the laser beam 2 to display an intended image),
collect a plurality of adjacent partial regions (see Figure 4; wherein the partial region corresponds to each node of the pixel grid pattern 42) provided at an end portion of the scanning region to be treated as one partial region (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0071]; wherein it is disclosed that the display controller 4 obtains both the display data (P-3) and the display data (P-2), using the pixel data at the address position (j+3) and the pixel data at the address position (j+2)); and
perform control of a region surrounded by a first straight line (Figure 4; Horizontal Line of Pixel Grid Pattern 42) passing through a plurality of intersections which are continuous in a first direction (see Figure 4; wherein the first straight line represents the horizontal line of the pixel grid pattern 42 which extends in a left to right direction and intersects with the Lissajous pattern at multiple points) and a second straight line (Figure 4; Vertical Line of Pixel Grid Pattern 42) passing through a plurality of intersections which are continuous in a second direction (see Figure 4; wherein the second straight line represents the vertical line of the pixel grid pattern 42 which extends in a top to bottom direction and intersects with the Lissajous pattern at multiple points) that intersects the first direction among a plurality of intersections of the Lissajous curve (see Figure 4) to be the partial region (see Figure 4; Paragraphs [0051]-[0052]; wherein it is disclosed that the display controller 4 calculates a scanning position of the laser beam 2 on the projection plane 7 based on information relating to the drive signal to be inputted from the drive controller 6. The display controller 4 reads out, from the frame buffer 5, pixel data in the address position of the frame buffer 5 corresponding to the calculated scanning position of the laser beam 2 on the projection plane 7 or a position near the scanning position. The display controller 4 generates display data for modulating the intensity of the laser beam 2, using the readout pixel data).
Kurozuka does not expressly disclose that the image being formed such that one pixel of an input image corresponds to one of the partial region.
Smits discloses a control device (Figure 1; LID 100) comprising: at least one processor (Figure 1; Processor 116) configured to: form an image (see Paragraph [0073]; wherein it is disclosed that the processor 116 is coupled with light source driver 102 to control the modulation of component image beams), wherein
the image being formed such that one pixel of an input image corresponds to one of the partial region (see Paragraph [0039]; wherein it is disclosed that the image pixels and the display positions have substantially equal resolutions, the correspondence there between can be a one-to-one mapping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the control device of Kurozuka such that the image being formed such that one pixel of an input image corresponds to one of the partial region, as taught by Smits, because doing so would ensure the image pixels and the display positions have substantially equal resolutions (see Smits Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kurozuka as modified by Smits discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kurozuka further discloses the partial region has a rectangular shape (see Figure 4; wherein the partial region corresponds to each node of the pixel grid pattern 42 and has a rectangular shape).
Regarding Claim 3, Kurozuka as modified by Smits discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kurozuka further discloses an image forming apparatus (Figure 1; Scanning Type Image Display Apparatus 11) comprising:
an output unit (Figure 1; Light Source Portion 1) that outputs an electromagnetic wave (see Figure 1 and Paragraph [0039]; wherein it is disclosed that the light source portion 1 emits laser beam 2);
a spatial modulation unit (Figure 1; Scanning Mirror 3) that spatially modulates an angle or a position of the electromagnetic wave (Figure 1; Laser Beam 2) to be scanned according to a Lissajous curve based on a spatial modulation signal (see Figure 1 and Paragraph [0043]; wherein it is disclosed that the scanning mirror 3 is a two-axis resonant mirror which is resonantly driven in two directions i.e. a horizontal direction (a first direction) and a vertical direction (a second direction), and is configured such that a scanning beam forms a Lissajous pattern);
a time modulation unit (Figure 1; Display Controller 4) that time-modulates an intensity of the electromagnetic wave (Figure 1; Laser Beam 2) according to an image formed for each partial region (see Figure 4; wherein the partial region corresponds to each node of the pixel grid pattern 42) divided from the scanning region of the electromagnetic wave (Figure 1; Laser Beam 2) based on a time modulation signal (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0051]; wherein it is disclosed that the display controller 4 modulates the emission intensity of the laser beam 2 and makes it possible to display an intended image); and
the control device (Figure 1; Display Controller 4, Frame Buffer 5 and Drive Controller 6) according claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 4, Kurozuka as modified by Smits discloses the limitations of claim 3 as detailed above.
Kurozuka further discloses a correction unit (Figure 1; Light Collecting Lens 1c) that corrects a distortion of the electromagnetic wave (Figure 1; Laser Beam 2) on which the spatial modulation and the time modulation are performed (see Paragraph [0077]; wherein it is disclosed that the light collecting lens 1c of the light source portion 1 is movable in the optical axis direction, and that the display controller 4 controls the position of the light collecting lens 1c on the optical axis in synchronization with horizontal scanning of the scanning mirror 3 by the drive controller 6 for the purpose of displaying a clear image over the entirety of the projection plane 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious collecting the plurality of adjacent partial regions provided at an end portion of the scanning region to be treated as one partial region includes collecting the plurality of adjacent partial regions as one partial region such that an area of the adjacent partial regions becomes approximately the same as an area of a partial region located in a central portion of the scanning region.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claim 1 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious collecting the plurality of adjacent partial regions provided at an end portion of the scanning region to be treated as one partial region includes collecting the plurality of adjacent partial regions as one partial region such that a length of the Lissajous curve that passes through the adjacent partial regions becomes approximately the same as a length of the Lissajous curve that passes through a partial region located in a central portion of the scanning region.
These limitations in combination with the limitations of claim 1 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
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 CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm EST.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882