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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2023 and 12/13/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “(Figure 2)” should be deleted from the page of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in claim 7 reference character “5” has been used to designate both first light source and second light source. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in claim 7 reference character “6” has been used to designate both first single light beam and second single light beam. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate the single light beams, first single light beam, second single light beam and third single light beam. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, replace the semicolon with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janssens.
Janssens (US Pub. No. 2014/0092364 A1) discloses:
Regarding claim 1, a stage projector (Figure 5, element 80; page 4, paragraph 0055, lines 8-9) comprising: a source device (element 10 illustrated in Figure 1 and 5) configured to emit at least one overall light beam (Figure 1, element 18); and a manipulation device (Figure 1, element 20), which is arranged such to intercept at least a portion of the at least one overall light beam (Figure 1, element 18) and being configured to generate an overall light beam (Figure 1, element 18), which does not have a linear polarization.
Regarding claim 2, the source device (element 10 illustrated in Figure 1 and 5) comprises a plurality of light sources (Figure 1, elements 14, 15 and 16), each being configured to emit a respective single light beam having substantially a defined wavelength (page 3, paragraph 0043, lines 15-16) and having substantially a linear polarization (page 3, paragraph 0043, lines 21-24); wherein the overall light beam (Figure 1, element 18) is defined by a combination of respective single light beams (i.e. light beams corresponding to elements 14, 15 and 16 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, the source device (element 10 illustrated in Figure 1 and 5) comprises a plurality of laser light sources (Figure 1, elements 14, 15 and 16), each one configured to emit a respective single light beam (page 3, paragraph 0043, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 12, an optical device (Figure 1, element 60) configured to intercept the overall light beam (Figure 1, element 18) and to allow for the outlet of a scenic light beam (Figure 1, element 19) from the stage projector (Figure 5, element 80; page 4, paragraph 0055, lines 8-9); wherein the manipulation device (Figure 1, element 20) is interposed between the one or more light sources of the source device (Figure 1, elements 14, 15 and 16) and the optical device (Figure 1, element 60).
Regarding claim 13, the optical device (Figure 1, element 60) comprises: a collimation group (i.e. fly eye integrator; page 3, paragraph 0044, lines 5-6) configured to minimize the divergence of the at least one overall light beam (Figure 1, element 18); and a focusing group (Figure 1, element 11) which intercepts the overall light beam from the collimation device (i.e. fly eye integrator) and focuses it on an opening of the stage projector (Figure 5, element 80; page 4, paragraph 0055, lines 8-9).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens in view of Homma.
Janssens (US Pub. No. 2014/0092364 A1) teaches the salient feature of the present invention as explained above except (regarding claim 3) the manipulation device is arranged such to intercept one or more single light beams for modifying the polarization of the one or more single light beams and determining a substantially non-linearly polarized overall light beam, and (regarding claim 4) the manipulation device is arranged such to intercept each single light beam so as to modify the polarization of each single light beam.
Homma (US Pub. No. 2014/0063466 A1) discloses:
Regarding claim 3, the manipulation device (Figure 14, element 13) is arranged such to intercept one or more single light beams for modifying the polarization of the one or more single light beams (Figure 14, elements b21, g21 and r21) and determining a substantially non-linearly polarized overall light beam (page 9, paragraph 0135, lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 4, the manipulation device (Figure 14, element 13) is arranged such to intercept each single light beam (Figure 14, elements b21, g21 and r21) so as to modify the polarization of each single light beam (clearly illustrated in Figure 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the manipulation device disclosed by Homma in combination with Janssens’ invention for the purpose of producing an optical path difference of a ¼ wavelength between two linear polarized light when light passes therethrough (Homma, page 9, paragraph 0136, lines 2-5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens in view of Homma.
Janssens (US Pub. No. 2014/0092364 A1) teaches the salient feature of the present invention as explained above except the manipulation device is configured to determine substantially a circular or elliptical polarization of the overall light beam.
Homma (US Pub. No. 2014/0063466 A1) discloses a manipulation device (Figure 14, element 13) configured to determine substantially a circular or elliptical polarization of the overall light beam (page 9, paragraph 0135, lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a manipulation device configured to determine substantially a circular or elliptical polarization of the overall light beam as shown by Homma in combination with Janssens’ invention for the purpose of producing an optical path difference of a ¼ wavelength between two linear polarized light when light passes therethrough (Homma, page 9, paragraph 0136, lines 2-5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens in view of Homma.
Janssens (US Pub. No. 2014/0092364 A1) teaches the salient feature of the present invention as explained above except the manipulation device comprises a quarter-wave plate configured to determine substantially a circular or elliptical polarization of the overall light beam.
Homma (US Pub. No. 2014/0063466 A1) discloses the manipulation device (Figure 14, element 13) comprises a quarter-wave plate (page 9, paragraph 0135, lines 4-5) configured to determine substantially a circular or elliptical polarization of the overall light beam (page 9, paragraph 0135, lines 4-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the manipulation device comprises a quarter-wave plate configured to determine substantially a circular or elliptical polarization of the overall light beam as shown by Homma in combination with Janssens’ invention for the purpose of producing an optical path difference of a ¼ wavelength between two linear polarized light when light passes therethrough (Homma, page 9, paragraph 0136, lines 2-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens in view of Ogino.
Janssens (US Pub. No. 2014/0092364 A1) teaches the salient features of the present invention as explained above except a source device comprising at least a first light source configured to emit at least a first single light beam having substantially a linear polarization and substantially a first defined wavelength and at least a second light source configured to emit a second single light beam having substantially a linear polarization and a second defined wavelength substantially equal to the first defined wavelength; wherein the overall light beam is formed by at least the first single light beam and the second single light beam; wherein the manipulation device is arranged in such a manner so as to intercept the first single light beam and is configured to modify the substantially linear polarization of the first single light beam; wherein the manipulation device is arranged in such a manner so as not to intercept the second single light beam.
Ogino (US Pub. No. 2017/0176845 A1) discloses (see annotated Figure 4) a source device (Figure 4, element 70) comprising at least a first light source (Figure 4, element 712a) configured to emit at least a first single light beam (Figure 4, element A) having substantially a linear polarization and substantially a first defined wavelength (i.e. blue light) and at least a second light source (Figure 4, element 712b) configured to emit a second single light beam (Figure 4, element B) having substantially a linear polarization and a second defined wavelength (i.e. blue light) substantially equal to the first defined wavelength (i.e. blue light); wherein the overall light beam (Figure 4, element C) is formed by at least the first single light beam (Figure 4, element D) and the second single light beam (Figure 4, element E); wherein the manipulation device (Figure 4, element 761a) is arranged in such a manner so as to intercept the first single light beam (Figure 4, element A) and is configured to modify the substantially linear polarization of the first single light beam (Figure 4, element D); wherein the manipulation device (Figure 4, element 761a) is arranged in such a manner so as not to intercept the second single light beam (Figure 4, element E).
PNG
media_image1.png
836
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light source device disclosed by Ogino in combination with Janssens’ invention for the purpose of enabling a part of the blue wavelength band light to penetrate therethrough and to reflect the remaining blue wavelength band light (Ogino, page 3, paragraph 0048, lines 13-16).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens in view of Ogino.
Janssens (US Pub. No. 2014/0092364 A1) teaches the salient features of the present invention as explained above except (regarding claim 8) the manipulation device is arranged such to intercept the first single light beam and is configured to rotate the substantially linear polarization of the first single light beam by a given angle, preferentially by 90°, and (regarding claim 9) the manipulation device comprises a half-wave plate arranged such to intercept the first single light beam and configured to modify the substantially linear polarization of the first single light beam by a given angle, preferentially by 90°.
Ogino (US Pub. No. 2017/0176845 A1) discloses (see annotated Figure 4):
Regarding claim 8, the manipulation device (Figure 4, element 761) is arranged such to intercept the first single light beam (Figure 4, element A) and is configured to rotate the substantially linear polarization of the first single light beam (Figure 4, element A) by a given angle, preferentially by 90° (page 4, paragraph 0050, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 9, the manipulation device (Figure 4, element 761) comprises a half-wave plate (page 4, paragraph 0050, line 8) arranged such to intercept the first single light beam (Figure 4, element A) and configured to modify the substantially linear polarization of the first single light beam (Figure 4, element A) by a given angle, preferentially by 90° (page 4, paragraph 0050, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the manipulation device disclosed by Ogino in combination with Janssens’ invention for the purpose of enabling a part of the blue wavelength band light to penetrate therethrough and to reflect the remaining blue wavelength band light (Ogino, page 3, paragraph 0048, lines 13-16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 10, the limitation "a first single light beam having substantially a first wavelength and a second single light beam having substantially a second wavelength different from the first wavelength" failed to further limit the parent claim because said parent claim states that the first and second wavelengths are equal (see claim 7). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vinther et al. (US Patent No. 2012/0091917 A1) discloses illumination device with a number of light sources arranged in at least two groups of light sources that are individually controllable. The first group of light sources have light collectors such as internal reflection lenses, mixers or other lenses placed over them to collect and convert light of the light sources into a number of light source beams. The second group of light sources pass light through diffusing areas of a diffuser in the form of a diffusion cover included in the lamp housing to diffuse the light and create a background light for the first group of light sources. The light from the first group of light sources passes through non diffusing regions of the diffuser cover without the light being diffused. The second group of light sources are interleaved with the first group by the diffuser having one or several diffusion areas between non diffusion areas. By controlling both groups of light sources based on the same target color the dotted look of led light sources can be removed or by controlling the two groups of light sources based on two different colors light effects can be obtained. The illumination device can be included in a moving head light source with a base, a yoke connected rotatably to the base and the head connected rotatably to the head.
Sato et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0328633 A1) teaches a light source unit including a light source group wherein light sources are arranged into rows and columns so as to form a planar configuration and a primary reflecting mirror group disposed on an optical axis of the light source group to reflect light beams emitted from the light source group as light beams whose sectional areas are reduced in a column direction by narrowing intervals between light beams emitted from the light sources making up the rows of the light source group, the primary reflecting mirror group includes different strip-like reflecting mirrors disposed on optical axes of light beams emitted from the rows of the light source group in a step-like fashion, and the reflecting mirrors are disposed to eliminate intervals between reflected light beams from the reflecting mirrors, thereby making it possible to reduce the sectional areas of the light beams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, 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.
/MAGDA CRUZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
09/29/2025