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 02/04/2026 amended claims 1 and 16. Claims 1-17 are pending and rejected.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 02/04/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.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 1-3, 7-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maeda ‘355 (US 20120320355 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Maeda ‘355 teaches a projection device (Fig. 2-4 and 6-12), comprising an illumination system, a light valve (19), and a projection lens (20), wherein the illumination system is configured to provide an illumination beam, the light valve (19) is arranged on a transmission path of the illumination beam and configured to convert the illumination beam into an image beam, the projection lens (20) is arranged on a transmission path of the image beam and configured to project the image beam out of the projection device, the illumination system comprises a light source assembly, and the light source assembly comprises: a light source assembly (90, 100, Fig. 13-19) including coaxial first and second annular reflectors (93c, 94, 103c, 104), comprising: a first annular reflector (), having an inner side and an outer side opposite to each other, wherein the inner side has a first reflective surface (of 94, 104); a second annular reflector (93c, 103c), arranged to be coaxial with the first annular reflector (94, 104), wherein a radius of the first annular reflector (94, 104) is greater than a radius of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c), the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) has a second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c), and the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) faces the first reflective surface (of 94, 104; Fig. 14, 15, 18); and a plurality of first light source modules (11; [0042]), taking a central axis of the first annular reflector (94, 104) as a center and annularly arranged around the center, wherein the plurality of first light source modules (11) are configured to provide a plurality of first beams to the first reflective surface (of 94, 104; Fig. 13-19), and the plurality of first beams is transmitted from the plurality of first light source modules (11) to the first annular reflector (94, 104) along a direction parallel to the central axis of the first annular reflector (94, 104), wherein the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) is configured to reflect the plurality of first beams to the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c), and the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) is configured to reflect the plurality of first beams and make the plurality of first beams emit out along a direction parallel to the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c; Fig. 13-19).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda ‘355 further teaches the first annular reflector (94, 104) is in a shape of a frustum and has a first opening and a second opening, the first opening and the second opening are respectively located on two sides of the first reflective surface (of 94, 104), and an aperture of the first opening is smaller than an aperture of the second opening (Fig. 13-19).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda ‘355 further teaches the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) is in a shape of a cone or a frustum and has a bottom and a top, the bottom and the top are respectively located on two sides of the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c), a radius of the bottom is greater than a radius of the top, the bottom of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) is adjacent to the second opening of the first annular reflector (94, 104), and the top of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) is adjacent to the first opening of the first annular reflector (94, 104; Fig. 13-19).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda ‘355 further teaches each of the plurality of first light source modules (11; [0042]) has a plurality of light emitting elements (11n), each of the plurality of light emitting elements (11n) is configured to provide the first beam, the plurality of first light source modules (11) are arranged face to face with the first reflective surface (of 94, 104), and a distance between each of the plurality of light emitting elements of each of the plurality of first light source modules (11) and the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) is equal.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda ‘355 further teaches the first annular reflector (94, 104) and/or the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) are in a circular shape, and the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) and/or the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) comprise at least one reflective area (Fig. 14-19).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda ‘355 further teaches the first annular reflector (94, 104) and/or the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) comprise a plurality of mirrors, the plurality of mirrors of the first annular reflector (94, 104) take the central axis of the first annular reflector (94, 104) as a center and are arranged annularly and separated from each other, the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) comprises inside surfaces of the plurality of mirrors of the first annular reflector (94, 104; Fig. 13), the plurality of mirrors of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) take the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) as a center and are arranged annularly and separated from each other, the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) comprises outside surfaces of the plurality of mirrors of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c; Fig. 14 and 16), and the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) and/or the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) comprise a plurality of reflective areas respectively located on the plurality of mirrors.
Regarding claim 10, Maed ‘355a further teaches a material of the first annular reflector (94, 104) and/or the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) comprises metal or glass ([0109]).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda ‘355 further teaches the plurality of first light source modules (11) is equidistant from each other (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda ‘355 further teaches a distance between any two adjacent first beams emitted from the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) is greater than a distance between any two adjacent first beams incident on the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda ‘355.
Regarding claim 4, Maeda ‘355 does not explicitly teach a distance between the first opening and the second opening of the first annular reflector (94, 104) is equal to a distance between the bottom and the top of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c).
Having a distance between the first opening and the second opening of the first annular reflector (94, 104) is equal to a distance between the bottom and the top of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) requires only routing skills in the art and does not affect the functionality of the device in anyway.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have a distance between the first opening and the second opening of the first annular reflector (94, 104) is equal to a distance between the bottom and the top of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c). Furthermore, it is an issue of design choice; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Maeda ‘355 does not explicitly teach an included angle between a normal of the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) and the central axis of the first annular reflector (94, 104) is 42° to 48°, and an included angle between a normal of the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) and the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) is 42° to 48°.
Having an included angle between a normal of the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) and the central axis of the first annular reflector (94, 104) is 42° to 48°, and an included angle between a normal of the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) and the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) being 42° to 48° is a matter of design choice; hence it is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Maeda ‘355 further teaches a third annular reflector (lower 104; Fig. 18) and a plurality of third light source modules (inner 11n), wherein: the third annular reflector (lower 104) is arranged between the first annular reflector (upper 94, 104) and the second annular reflector (93c, 103c), the first annular reflector (upper 94, 104), the second annular reflector (93c, 103c), and the third annular reflector (lower 104) are arranged in a coaxial manner, the plurality of third light source modules (inner 11n) take a central axis of the third annular reflector (lower 104) as a center and are arranged annularly and are misaligned with the plurality of first light source modules (11) in radial directions of the third annular reflector (lower 104); the third annular reflector (lower 104) has a plurality of light transmitting parts (open space between lower 104 and inner 11n) and a plurality of reflective parts (of lower 104), the plurality of light transmitting parts (open space between lower 104 and inner 11n) is configured to make the plurality of first beams from the first reflective surface (of 94, 104) pass through, the plurality of third light source modules (inner 11n) are configured to provide a plurality of third beams, the plurality of reflective parts (of lower 104) are configured to reflect the plurality of third beams to the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c), and the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) is configured to reflect the plurality of third beams and make the plurality of third beams emit along a direction parallel to the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c; Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda ‘355, in the embodiments shown in Fig. 13-19, does not teach a focus lens arranged on the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c), wherein the focus lens is configured to make the plurality of first beams from the second reflective surface (of 93c, 103c) pass through.
Maeda ‘355, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4, teaches a focus lens (33) arranged on the central axis of the second annular reflector (14) where the focus lens (33) is configured to make the plurality of first beams from the second reflective surface (of 14) pass through.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine the embodiments in Fig. 13-19 with the embodiment in Fig. 4; because it allows controlling the light incident on the integrator.
Regarding claim 15, Maeda ‘355 further teaches a plurality of sub-light spots formed by the plurality of first beams on the focus lens are arranged in an annular manner (Fig. 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda ‘355 in view of Maeda ‘284 (US 20080259284 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda ‘355 does not teach a second light source module, wherein the second annular reflector (93c, 103c) is in a shape of a frustum and has a bottom and a top, the top comprises an opening, the second light source module is arranged on the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c), the second light source module is configured to provide a second beam, and the second beam passes through the opening along the central axis of the second annular reflector (93c, 103c).
Maeda ‘284 teaches a second light source module (105), wherein the second annular reflector (111-114) is in a shape of a frustum and has a bottom and a top, the top comprises an opening, the second light source module (105) is arranged on the central axis of the second annular reflector (111-1114), the second light source module (105) is configured to provide a second beam, and the second beam passes through the opening along the central axis of the second annular reflector (105; Fig. 2A-4D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Maeda ‘284 with Maeda ‘355; because it allows having more lights added to the system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda ‘355 in view of Wang (US 20130321777 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Maeda ‘355 does not explicitly teach the illumination system further comprises a wavelength conversion element arranged on a transmission path of the plurality of first beams from the second annular reflector (93c, 103c), the wavelength conversion element is configured to convert the plurality of first beams into a converted beam, the plurality of first beams and the converted beam form the illumination beam by the wavelength conversion element in a time interval, and the illumination beam comprises at least one of the plurality of first beams and the converted beam.
Wang teaches the illumination system (Fig. 2A) further comprises a wavelength conversion element (320) arranged on a transmission path of the plurality of first beams (212) from the second annular reflector (240), the wavelength conversion element (320) is configured to convert the plurality of first beams (212) into a converted beam (214’, 216), the plurality of first beams (212) and the converted beam (214’, 216) form the illumination beam by the wavelength conversion element (320) in a time interval, and the illumination beam comprises at least one of the plurality of first beams (212) and the converted beam (214’, 216).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Maeda ‘355 with Wang; because it allows outputting great color gamut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, applicant/s argue,
In the Office action, the reflecting mirrors 94 of Maeda'355 are considered as the first annular reflector of the instant claims 1 and 16, and the reflecting unit 93c is considered as the second annular reflector of the instant claims 1 and 16. However, Maeda'355 discloses that an included angle between the central axis 93x and the reflecting mirrors 94 is 45 degrees, and an included angle between the central axis 93x and the reflecting unit 93c is 30 degrees. Thus, although the light beams could be parallel to the central axis 93x when being emitted from the light sources 111 and 1113 to the reflecting mirrors 94, the light beams are not parallel to the central axis 93x after being reflected by the reflecting mirrors 94 and the reflecting unit 93c. (Remarks; p. 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims 1 and 16 recite “and make the plurality of first beams emit out along a direction parallel to the central axis of the second annular reflector.” The claims do not recite “and make the plurality of first beams emit out in a direction parallel to the central axis of the second annular reflector.” Merriam online dictionary defines “along” to mean “in a line matching the length or direction of.” Merriam online dictionary also defines “matching” to mean “to put in a set possessing equal or harmonizing attributes.” The term “matching” does not mean “to make identical;” hence the term “along” is interpreted as “in a line harmonizing with the direction of;” hence Maeda ‘355 teaches “make the plurality of first beams emit out along a direction parallel to the central axis of the second annular reflector.”
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
Prosecution Insights