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
The filing on 01/12/2026 amended claims 1, 7, 10, and 15. Claims 1-15 are pending and rejected.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 01/12/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richards (US 20140002514 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Richards teaches a projection device (Fig. 1-7), comprising: an illumination system (105, 205, 305, 605, 705), configured to emit an illumination light beam, and comprising at least one light-emitting device, wherein the at least one light-emitting device comprises a plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G; [0014], [0017], [0030], [0031], [0058]); a light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7), disposed on a transmission path of the illumination light beam and configured to convert the illumination light beam into an image light beam, wherein the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7) comprises a plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) each of the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) is configured to receive a plurality of color light beams with different wavelengths ([0014], [0017], [0030], [0031], [0058]) and controls one pixel in an image projected by the projection device, a chromaticity and brightness of each of a plurality of pixels of the image are independently controlled ([0015], [0054]); and a projection lens (Fig. 7; [0030]), disposed on a transmission path of the image light beam, and configured to project the image light beam out of the projection device to form the image, wherein the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) of the at least one light-emitting device emit a plurality of light beams, and the illumination light beam is formed by at least one of the plurality of light beams emitted by the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G), the plurality of light beams form a plurality of light spots (422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 4 and 5) on the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7), and the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) are respectively covered by the plurality of light spots (422, 422-E, 422-S, 424) wherein each of the plurality of light beams emitted by the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) corresponds to one of the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6), wherein when a number of the at least one light-emitting device is one, each of the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) is configured to emit the plurality of color light beams with different wavelengths, and each of the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) receives the plurality of color light beams from a corresponding same light-emitting assembly (Fig. 1-6; [0014], [0017], [0030], [0031], [0058]), or when the number of the at least one light-emitting device is multiple, each of the plurality of light-emitting devices are configured to emit one of the plurality of color light beams, and each of the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) receives the one of the plurality of color light beams from each of the plurality of light-emitting devices (Fig. 1-6; [0014], [0017], [0030], [0031], [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, Richards further teaches the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) comprise a first light-emitting assembly (first laser), a second light-emitting assembly (second laser), and a third light-emitting assembly (third laser), wherein the first light-emitting assembly (first laser) and the second light-emitting assembly (second laser) are adjacent in a first direction, the first light-emitting assembly (first laser) and the third light-emitting assembly (third laser) are adjacent in a second direction, and the first direction is not parallel to the second direction (Fig. 2, 3, and 5-7), and wherein the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) comprise a first light modulation region (on modulator at 422), a second light modulation region (on modulator at 422-E), and a third light modulation region (on modulator at 422-S), wherein the first light modulation region (on modulator at 422) and the second light modulation region (on modulator at 422-E) are adjacent in a third direction, the first light modulation region (on modulator at 422) and the third light modulation region (on modulator at 422-S) are adjacent in a fourth direction, and the third direction is not parallel to the fourth direction (Fig. 4; [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Richards further teaches the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (Fig. 2-6).
Regarding claim 4, Richards further teaches the third direction is perpendicular to the fourth direction (Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Richards further teaches the plurality of light spots (422, 422-E, 422-S, 424) comprise a first light spot (422), a second light spot (422-E), and a third light spot (422-S), the illumination light beams emitted by the first light-emitting assembly (first laser), the second light-emitting assembly (second laser), and the third light-emitting assembly (third laser) respectively form the first light spot (422), the second light spot (422-E), and the third light spot (422-S) on the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 2-7), and the first light modulation region (on modulator at 422), the second light modulation region (on modulator at 422-E), and the third light modulation region (on modulator at 422-S) are respectively covered by the first light spot (422), the second light spot (422-E), and the third light spot (422-S).
Regarding claim 6, Richards further teaches the first light spot (422) and the second light spot (422-E) are at least partially non-overlapped, and the first light spot (422) and the third light spot (422-S) are at least partially non-overlapped (Fig. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Richards further teaches the number of the at least one light-emitting device is multiple, and the plurality of light-emitting devices comprise a first light-emitting device, a second light-emitting device, and a third light-emitting device respectively configured to emit a first color light beam, a second color light beam, and a third color light beam (Fig. 7; [0014], [0030], [0031], [0058], [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Richards further teaches the illumination system (105, 205, 305, 605, 705) further comprises a light guide element (706, 707) configured to guide the first color light beam, the second color light beam, and the third color light beam to the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Richards further teaches each of the first light-emitting device, the second light-emitting device, and the third light-emitting device ([0030]-[0031]) comprises the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) illuminating the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6; ).
Regarding claim 10, Richards further teaches each of the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) comprises a plurality of color light-emitting elements, and the plurality of color light-emitting elements are configured to emit the plurality of color light beams ([0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Richards further teaches the illumination system (105, 205, 305, 605, 705) further comprises a local dimming element (650) electrically connected to each of the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) and configured to control a light-emitting intensity of each of the light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G; [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Richards further teaches a light diffusing element (110, 210, 310, 410, 610, 710R/B/G) disposed on the transmission path of the illumination light beam and located between the illumination system (105, 205, 305, 605, 705) and the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7), wherein after the illumination light beams emitted by the plurality of light-emitting assemblies (205, 305, 605, 705R/B/G) pass through the light diffusing element (110, 210, 310, 410, 610, 710R/B/G), the illumination light beams form the plurality of light spots (422, 422-E, 422-S, 424) on the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7), the plurality of light modulation regions (on 120, 225, 320, 420, 620 at 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424; Fig. 1-6) are respectively covered by the plurality of light spots (422, 422-E, 422-S, 424), and the plurality of light spots (422, 422-E, 422-S, 424) are at least partially overlapped with each other (Fig. 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, Richards further teaches at least one lens element disposed on the transmission path of the illumination light beam and located between the illumination system (105, 205, 305, 605, 705) and the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7; [0038], [0042], [0059]).
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Mizushima (US 20080158512 A1) and in further view of Kaneda (US 20130258294 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Richards does not teach at least one of a depolarizer and a despeckling element disposed on the transmission path of the illumination light beam and located between the light diffusing element (110, 210, 310, 410, 610, 710R/B/G) and the light valve (120, 225, 320, 420, 620, Fig. 7).
Kaneda teaches a despeckling element (14) disposed on the transmission path of the illumination light beam and located between the light diffusing element (151 and/or 152) and the light valve (21; Fig. 1, 19A-19C, and 21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Richards with Kaneda; because it prevents speckles in the projection image.
Mizushima teaches a depolarizer (21; Fig. 1(a)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Richards and Kaneda with Mizushima; because it produces depolarized projected image.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Konno (US 20110235003 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Richards does not teach at least one actuating element, wherein the at least one lens element is disposed on the at least one actuating element, the at least one actuating element is configured to move a position of the at least one lens element or change an inclination angle of the at least one lens element relative to the at least one light-emitting device, and positions or sizes of the plurality of light spots relative to the plurality of light modulation regions change along with the inclination angle and movement of the at least one lens element.
Konno teaches at least one actuating element (VB), wherein the at least one lens element (L1, L2, L3, L4) is disposed on the at least one actuating element (VB), the at least one actuating element (VB) is configured to move a position of the at least one lens element (L1, L2, L3, L4) or change an inclination angle of the at least one lens element relative to the at least one light-emitting device, and positions or sizes of the plurality of light spots relative to the plurality of light modulation regions change along with the inclination angle and movement of the at least one lens element (L1, L2, L3, L4; Fig. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Richards with Konno; because it prevents speckles in the projection image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended claim 1, applicant/s argue,
Firstly, please refer to para. [0045], FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 of Richards shown below, wherein para. [0045] has specifically recited "the illumination pattern 420 illustrates an exemplary mixing of light from the various light sources which includes an overlap at edge of adjacent light sources' illumination patterns". Due to the overlap of the illumination patterns, it is impossible for the system teaches by Richards to achieve the distinguish features at issue "when a number of the at least one light-emitting device is one… each of the plurality of light modulation regions receives the plurality of color light beams from a corresponding same light-emitting assembly". (Remarks; p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear as to why or how the overlap at the edge of adjacent illumination regions related to or inconsistent with the number of light-emitting device or the plurality of color light beams.
Applicant/s further argue,
Secondly, refer to para. [0058] and FIG. 7 of Richards shown below. The red light, green light and blue light respectively provided by the laser bank 705R, the laser bank 705G and the laser bank 705B are respectively transmitted to the corresponding color modulators DMD(R), DMD(G) and DMD (B). Accordingly, each of the illumination patterns 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424 would merely receive a beam of a same color at the modulator position. It is impossible for the system teaches by Richards to achieve the distinguish features at issue "when the number of the at least one light-emitting device is multiple each of the plurality of light modulation regions receives the one of the plurality of color light beams from each of the plurality of light-emitting devices". (Remarks; p. 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0014], [0030], [0031], and [0031] disclose
[0014] The locally dimmed overlapping pattern comprises overlapping instances of combined primary lights and/or overlapping instances of more than 3 primary light colors. The overlapping pattern may comprise overlapping instances of red, green, blue, and cyan light colors. The overlapping pattern may comprise a sequential illumination of the modulator with primary lights such that the overlapping pattern comprises overlapping instances of a first primary light in a first time period, a second primary light in a second time period, and a third primary light in a third time period. The primary lights may comprise at least one of red, green, blue, and yellow, cyan.
[0030] Turning back the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2, additional light sources may also be energized. For example, all of the light sources may be simultaneously energized. The bundled laser light sources 205 may be, for example, any primary color in a projection system. The bundled light sources 205 may be, for example, a set of single colored laser light sources such as any of red, green, or blue, in an RGB system, or any of yellow, magenta, or cyan or other primary colors.
[0031] The bundled light sources may also be a mixed set of primary colors such as a set of red, green, and blue laser light sources. Depending on other factors of projector design, the Red green and blue laser may be programmed to be on simultaneously, or to alternate energization in a time sequence (e.g., T1 energize red laser, T2 energize green laser, and T3 energize blue laser). The time period may be sequential, repeated, or interspersed with other intervals, such as blanking intervals. The time period may be adjusted, such that one of the colors may have a longer time period than others, and the time periods for one, more, or all of the colors may be variable.
Lastly applicant/s argue, “[t]hirdly, Richards has not recited each of the positions of the illumination patterns 422, 422-E, 422-S, 424 in the modulator corresponds to one pixel of the image.” (Remarks; p. 14). It appears that applicant/s interpret “one pixel” to mean “only one pixel.” Such interpretation is not support by the claim language.
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 extension fee 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 BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882