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 .
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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 211506154) in view of Xu et al. (CN 113009759).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a projection system (illustrated in fig. 6), comprising:
a light source (light source 1 of fig. 6), an illuminating lens group (first collimating lens 91 and the second collimating lens 92, fly-eye lens 10 and first condenser 3 of fig. 6), an imaging lens group (condenser 4 of fig. 6) and the collimating lens (first collimating lens 91 and the second collimating lens 92 of fig. 6) to, wherein
the light source (1), used to emit an illuminating beam and enter the liquid crystal panel (LCOS image source 5 of fig. 6) through the illuminating lens group (91, 92,10 and 3 of fig. 6),
the liquid crystal panel (5), used to receive the illuminating beam (illustrated in fig. 6) and convert the illuminating beam into an image beam (illustrated in fig. 6), wherein the image beam passes through the imaging lens group (4), and exits the projection system (out the side opposite the light source and illumination beam of fig. 6),
wherein the image beam passes through the imaging lens group (4) from the liquid crystal panel (5) in the following order: the liquid crystal panel (5), the condenser lens (4), the polarized beam splitter (2), a quarter wave plate (6), a spherical reflector (7), the quarter wave plate (6), and the polarized beam splitters (2) wherein there is no wave plate and no polarizer between the polarized beam splitter and the liquid crystal panel (illustrated in fig. 6).
Huang fails to teach an aperture.
Xu discloses an and an aperture (aperture 415 of fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the LCoS projection system of Huang with the aperture of Xu in order to increase the contrast of the projection system.
Huang as modified by Xu fails to teach wherein the illuminating beam passes through the illuminating lens group to liquid crystal panel in the following order: a collimating lens group, a fly-eye lens, a relay lens, a linear polarizer, a polarized beam splitter, and a condenser lens, and the liquid crystal panel; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify illuminating lens group to the liquid crystal panel in the particular order in order to reduce the amount of light loss or reduce stray light; thereby, reducing the amount of light incident onto the modulation device, which will lower the brightness of the resulting projected image.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses wherein the light source is a matrix light-emitting diode (pg. 2 2nd para.; the white light generated by the light source forms the sequential red, blue and green three primary colours).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses a fly-eye lens (fly-eye lens 10 of fig. 6).
Huang fails to teach wherein the fly-eye lens is plastic; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the fly-eye lens making the lens of plastic would decrease the cost of the lens; thus reducing the overall cost of the projection device.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating wherein the projection system satisfies 1 < aspect ratio of the rectangular spherical lens < aspect ratio of the liquid crystal panel; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify to apply the particular aspect ratio in order to achieve a particular efficiency, 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
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the projection system satisfies that a thickness of the fly-eye lens = an effective focal length of the microstructure units * a refractive index of the fly-eye lens; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify focal length and refractive index in order to achieve optimum efficiencies, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 198)
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses wherein the relay lens (3) has a positive diopter (the condensing lens 3 converges light onto the modulator 5; therefore, it has positive power. The act of converging means that it has positive power).
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses wherein the relay lens (3) is a plano-convex lens (illustrated in fig. 6, lens 3 is plano-convex).
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses wherein the condenser lens (4) has a positive diopter (the condensing lens 4 converges light onto the modulator 5; therefore, it has positive power. The act of converging means that it has positive power).
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses wherein the reflector is a plano- convex lens (reflector 7 is a concave mirror of fig. 6).
Huang fails to teach wherein a reflective surface of the plano-convex lens is coated with a high reflection coating.
Xu fails to teach wherein a reflective surface of the plano-convex lens is coated with a high reflection coating (pg. 8 3rd para.; reflective lens 413 away from PBS prism 407 is plated with high reflection film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the LCoS projection system of Huang with the high reflection coating of Xu in order to maintain light efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Huang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the projection system satisfies 10 mm < system length < 30 mm, wherein the system length is a distance from a light-incident surface of the collimating lens group to the aperture; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify projection system of Xu in order to make the projection system more compact, 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
Regarding claim 17, Huang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a dimension of the aperture is 3 mm to 4 mm; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the aperture dimension to 3 - 4mm to insure optimal brightness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 198)
Regarding claim 18, Huang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the projection system satisfies I an effective focal length of the imaging lens groups I < Ian effective focal length of the illuminating 25 lens group I; however, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the focal lengths of both the imaging and illuminating system of Xu in order to make the projection system more compact, 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
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Huang et al. (CN 211506154) in view of Xu et al. (CN 113009759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang (CN 108089394).
Regarding claim 3, Huang as modified by Xu discloses two collimating lenses (91 and 92).
Huang as modified by Xu fails to teach wherein the lens group is aspherical.
Lang discloses a pattern lamp projection device wherein the collimating lenses are aspherical (two aspheric collimating lenses 420 and 430 of fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the collimating lenses of Huang and Xu with the aspherical collimating lenses of Lang in order to reduce spherical aberration.
Regarding claim 4, Huang as modified by Xu discloses wherein the collimating lens group (91 and 92 of fig. 6) comprises two lenses (shown in fig. 6), wherein a diopter of the two lenses are positive (the collimating lenses 91 and 92 converges light from the LED light source 1; therefore, it has positive power. The act of converging means that it has positive power), and the two lenses are plano-convex lenses (illustrated in fig. 6).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 211506154) in view of Xu et al. (CN 113009759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue et al (JP 2010152276).
Regarding claim 6, Huang as modified by Xu discloses a projection system (illustrated in fig. 6) comprising a fly-eye lens array (10).
Huang as modified by Xu fails to teach wherein the fly-eye lens array has a refractive index of 1.4-1.6.
Inoue discloses a display device comprising a fly-eye lens array having a refractive index of 1.4-1.6 (pg. 9 4th para.; the refractive index n1 of the material constituting the first unit shape elements 45 constituting the first fly-eye lens 46 of the first optical sheet 40 is the second optical sheet 50 of the second optical sheet 50. It is higher than the value of the refractive index n2 of the material constituting the multiple second unit shape elements 55 constituting the two fly-eye lens 56. In the present embodiment, the value of the refractive index n2 of the material forming the second unit shape elements 55 constituting the second fly's eye lens 56 of the second optical sheet 50 is 1.5 or less... As described above, when the refractive indexes n1 and n2 of the materials forming the unit shape elements 45 and 55 are set, while using a cheaply available material having a refractive index in the range of 1.4 to 1.6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the projection system of Huang and Xu with the fly-eye lenses of Inoue in order to increase the luminance of the projection device (Inoue; pg. 9 4th para.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Huang et al. (CN 211506154) in view of Xu et al. (CN 113009759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 104061453A).
Regarding claim 7, Huang as modified by Xu discloses a projection device comprising a fly-eye lens array (10).
Huang as modified by Xu fails to teach wherein the fly-eye lens has a plurality of microstructure units, and each of the microstructure units is a rectangular spherical lens.
Zhou discloses an LED light source comprising a fly-eye lens has a plurality of microstructure units, and each of the microstructure units is a rectangular spherical lens (para. 0041; a transparent substrate 131 can be a rectangular plate, a plurality of spherical micro-lens 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify projection system of Huang and Xu with the rectangular spherical fly-eye lens of Zhou in order to provide a more uniform illumination and making the lighting area boundary clearer, LED lamp of light source structure with uniform colour (Zhou; para. 0004).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 211506154) in view of Xu et al. (CN 113009759) and Zhou et al. (CN 104061453A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mizusako et al. (JP2005189470 A).
Regarding claim 10, Huang as modified by Xu and Zhou discloses projection system comprising fly-eye lens array (404).
Huang as modified by Xu and Zhou fails to teach wherein the projection system satisfies 100 < number of microstructure units of the fly-eye lens < 125.
Mizusako discloses wherein the projection system satisfies 100 < number of microstructure units of the fly-eye lens < 125 (illustrated in fig. 1-1 there are 120 rectangular microlenses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the projection system of Huang as modified by Xu and Zhou with the particular number of microlenses in order to increase efficiency and to provide a more uniform illumination and making the lighting area boundary clearer, LED lamp of light source structure with uniform colour.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 211506154) in view of Xu et al. (CN 113009759) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iizuka et al. (US Pat. 5278698).
Regarding claim 14, Huang as modified by Xu discloses a condensing lens (condenser 410 of fig. 3).
Huang as modified by Xu fails to teach wherein the condenser lens is a double-sided aspherical lens.
Iizuka discloses a projecting lens wherein the condenser lens is a double-sided aspherical lens (col. 16 lines 66-67; condenser lens is made from plastic and both surfaces thereof are aspherical).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the application to modify the projection device of Huang and Xu with the double-sided aspherical lens of Iizuka in order to efficiently collect and focus light, minimizing aberrations and maximizing light transmission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/19/2026 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
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 10 February 2026
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882