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 05/22/2026 amended claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 05/22/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objection/s to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of Remarks, filed on 05/22/2026, with respect to the rejections under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejections of claims 1-9, and 11-16 have been withdrawn.
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 1-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20210247677 A1) in view of Pan (US 20210368145 A1) and in further view of Hsieh (US 20180173087 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Chen teaches a multi-source illumination system, comprising: a blue light-emitting element (110; [0022]), configured to emit a blue light beam (L1); a red light-emitting element (120; [0022]), configured to emit a red light beam (L2);a wavelength conversion device (130), comprising a reflective region and a wavelength conversion region, wherein the reflective region and the wavelength conversion region are sequentially located on a transmission path of the blue light beam (Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C; [0023]), and the wavelength conversion region is configured to convert the blue light beam into a green light beam (L3; [0023]); a dichroic assembly (140, 150), disposed between the blue light-emitting element (110) and the wavelength conversion device (130).
Chen does not teach a first light diffusion element or a second light diffusion element.
Pan teaches a first light diffusion element (first 140), disposed between the red light-emitting element (AL) and the dichroic assembly (130); or a second light diffusion element (second 140), disposed on transmission paths of the blue light beam (70B), the red light beam (70R), and the green light beam (70G) from the dichroic assembly (130; Fig. 3A). Pan also teaches a prism assembly (210), disposed on transmission paths of the red light beam (70R), the green light beam (70G), and the blue light beam (70B) from the second light diffusion element (second 140), and having a dichroic film (DM; Fig. 1D and 1E); a first light valve (212), wherein the dichroic film (DM) is configured to transmit the red light beam (72, 70B) and the blue light beam to the first light valve (212), and the first light valve (212) is configured to respectively convert the red light beam (72) and the blue light beam (70B) into a first image light beam (80R) and a second image light beam (80B; [0037], [0038]); a second light valve (211), wherein the dichroic film (DM) is configured to transmit the green light beam (71) to the second light valve (211), and the second light valve (211) is configured to convert the green light beam (71) into a third image light beam (80G); and a projection lens (220), disposed on a transmission path of an image light beam (80), and configured to project the image light beam out of the projection apparatus, wherein the image light beam comprises at least one of the first image light beam (80R), the second image light beam (80B), and the third image light beam (80G).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen with Pan; because it eliminates speckles produced by the laser light sources to improve image quality ([0034], [0043] of Pan).
Neither Chen nor Pan teaches the second light diffusion element having a diffusion region and a non-diffusion region, wherein an angle of the non-diffusion region relative to a central axis of the second light diffusion element is greater than an angle of the diffusion region relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element, the diffusion region is located on the transmission path of the blue light beam, and the non-diffusion region is located on the transmission path of the green light beam.
Hsieh teaches the second light diffusion element (M2) having a diffusion region (M2a) and a non-diffusion region (M2b and/or M2c; [0047]), wherein an angle of the non-diffusion region (M2b and/or M2c) relative to a central axis of the second light diffusion element (M2) is greater than an angle of the diffusion region (M2a) relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element (M2; Fig. 4), the diffusion region (M2a) is located on the transmission path of the blue light beam, and the non-diffusion region is located on the transmission path of the green light beam (Fig. 4; [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen and Pan with Hsieh; because it allows for enhancing purity of the converted color light beams to improve image quality ([0047] of Hsieh).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in an angle coverage of the wavelength conversion region (M1; Fig. 2 of Hsieh) relative to a central axis of the wavelength conversion device (M1) is 270 degrees to 306 degrees.
Regarding claim 3, Chen further teaches the dichroic assembly (140, 150) comprises a first dichroic element (140) and a second dichroic element (150), wherein the first dichroic element (140) is disposed between the second dichroic element (150) and the wavelength conversion device (130; Fig. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further teaches the first dichroic element (140) has a first region (A1), a second region (A2), and a third region (A3) sequentially arranged, wherein coating properties of the first region (A1) are the same as coating properties of the third region (A3; [0032]), and the coating properties of the first region (A1) are different from coating properties of the second region (A2; Fig. 3; [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further teaches the first region (A1) and the third region (A3) are configured to allow the blue light beam (L1) and the red light beam (L2) to pass through and reflect the green light beam (L3), the second region (A2) is configured to be allow the red light beam (L2; [0034]) to pass through and reflect the blue light beam (L1; [0032]) and the green light beam (L3; [0033]), the second region (A2) and the third region (A3) are located on a transmission path of the blue light beam (L1) from the reflective region of the wavelength conversion device (130), and an area ratio of the second region (A2) to the third region (A3) is 1:1 ([0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen further teaches the second dichroic element (150) is configured to allow the red light beam (L2) to pass through and reflect the blue light beam (L1; [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in the red light beam (L2 of Chen; 50R of Pan) emitted by the red light-emitting element (120 of Chen; AL of Pan) is sequentially transmitted to the first light diffusion element (first 140 of Pan), the second dichroic element (150 of Chen), the first dichroic element (140 of Chen), and the second light diffusion element (second 140 of Pan).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in the red light beam (L2 of Chen) passes through the non-diffusion region (M2b of Hsieh) of the second light diffusion element (M2; [0047] of Hsieh).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in the first light diffusion element (first 140 of Pan) has a diffusion region (Fig. 3A; [0045] of Pan).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in a sum of the angle of the diffusion region (M2a of Hsieh) relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element (M2 of Hsieh) and the angle of the non-diffusion region (M2a and M2b of Hsieh) relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element (M2 of Hsieh) is 360 degrees.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in the non-diffusion region (M2b, M2c of Hsieh) filtering out blue light ([0047] of Hsieh).
It is well known in the art that there are 3 types of color filters; filter by absorption, filter by interference and filter by reflection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to have a reflective type color comprising a reflective layer, configured to reflect the blue light beam; because it would have been obvious to try. Furthermore, reflection type color filter is cheaper that interference type filter and operates cooler that absorption type filter.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in the red light beam (L2 of Chen; B2 of Hsieh) and the green light beam (L3 of Chen; B3 of Hsieh) pass through the non-diffusion region (M2b, M2c) of the second light diffusion element (M2 of Hsieh) during a first time interval, and the blue light beam (L1 of Chen, B1 of Hsieh) passes through the diffusion region (M2a of Hsieh) of the second light diffusion element (M2 of Hsieh) during a second time interval.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh, consequently results in the red light beam (L2 of Chen; 72/70R of Pan) and the green light beam (L3 of Chen; 71/70G of Pan) are respectively transmitted to the first light valve (212 of Pan) and the second light valve (211 of Pan) during a first time interval (Fig. 1D of Pan), and the blue light beam (L1 of Chen; 70B of Pan) is transmitted to the first light valve (212 of Pan) during a second time interval (Fig. 1E of Pan).
Regarding claim 16, neither Chen, Pan, nor Hsieh teaches ratio relationships between the first time interval and the second time interval are 75:25 to 85:15.
It is well known in the art that ratio relationships between the first time interval and the second time interval are matters of color balance in the projected pictures. Consequently, choosing the color balance by controlling the ratio relationship between the first time interval and the second time interval is matter of design choice.
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 ratio relationships between the first time interval and the second time interval are 75:25 to 85:15; because it is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 17, neither Chen, Pan nor Hsieh, explicitly teaches the red light-emitting element (120) is turned off when the reflective region of the wavelength conversion device (130) is located on the transmission path of the blue light beam (L1).
Pan teaches the first light valve (212) being sequentially modulating red light (72, 70R) then blue light (70B), i.e., the red light is turned off when the blue light is on.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the combination of Chen, Pan and Hsieh results in the red light-emitting element (120 of Chen) is turned off when the reflective region of the wavelength conversion device (130 of Chen) is located on the transmission path of the blue light beam (L1 of Chen) to produce blue light (Fig. 2A-2C); because it is a matter of common sense.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Pan and Hsieh and in further view of Lin (US 20210018825 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, neither Chen, Pan, nor Hsieh teaches the first light diffusion element (250) has a diffusion region and a non-diffusion region, wherein an angle of the diffusion region of the first light diffusion element (250) relative to a central axis of the first light diffusion element (250) is the same as an angle of the wavelength conversion region relative to a central axis of the wavelength conversion device (130).
Lin teaches the first light diffusion element (120; Fig. 2A, 4) has a diffusion region (122) and a non-diffusion region (124), wherein an angle of the diffusion region (122) of the first light diffusion element (120) relative to a central axis of the first light diffusion element (120) is the same as an angle of the wavelength conversion region (132; Fig. 3, 5) relative to a central axis of the wavelength conversion device (130; Fig. 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Chen, Pan and Hsieh with Lin; because it allows synchronization between the diffusion wheel and wavelength conversion wheel to eliminate color smearing reducing image quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, applicant/s argue,
Applicant respectfully disagrees the above comparison and interpretations. According to paragraphs [0046]-[0048] and FIG. 4 of Hsieh, the filtering module M2 in Hsieh refers to a "filtering" module, which is not equivalent to the second "light diffision" element of the present application. Specifically, those skilled in the art know that "filtering" and "diffusion" are two distinct techniques in optical processing, primarily differing in their nature of effect on light: filtering controls the "wavelength/color" of light, while diffusion processes the "spatial distribution/softness" of light. Since filtering and diffusion have different effects on light, they cannot mutually replaced with each other, and thus the above
comparison in the Office Action should be reconsidered.
Furthermore, referring at least to FIG. 4 of the present application, the second diffusion element 270 has a diffusion region 272 and a non-diffusion region 274. The diffusion region 272 is an "effect region" that diffuses light, and the non-diffusion region 274 is a "non-effect region" that does not diffuse light. The angle of the non-diffusion region 274 (i.e., the non-effect region) relative to the central axis 271 of the second light diffusion element 270 is greater than the angle of the diffusion region (i.e., the effect region) relative to the central axis 271 of the second light diffusion element 270. In contrast, in Hsieh reference, the "effect regions" that filter light are the first filtering area M2b and the second filtering area M2c, while the "non-effect region" that does not filter light is the light pervious area M2a. The angle of the light pervious area M2a (i.e., the non-effect region) relative to the central axis of the filtering module M2 in Hsieh reference is smaller than the angle of the first filtering area M2b plus the second filtering area M2c (i.e., the non-effect regions) relative to the central axis of the filtering module M2. The configuration relationship between the effect and non-effect regions in Hsieh reference is clearly completely opposite to what have been claimed in claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, even if the filtering module M2 in the Hsieh reference is interpreted as the diffusion element, it will not possess the technical feature of claim 1 of the present application, where the angle of the non- diffusion region (i.e., the non-effect region) relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element is greater than the angle of the diffusion region (i.e., the effect region) relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element. Therefore, even if combining Chen, Pan, and Hsieh, the combination still fails to teach "an angle of the non- diffusion region relative to a central axis of the second light diffusion element is greater than14
an angle of the diffusion region relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element" recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hsieh clearly and unambiguously teaches “wherein the light pervious area M2a is provided with a diffusion sheet to minimize the speckle noises of the illumination system 100” in paragraph [0047]. Furthermore, Hsieh teaches also clear show in Fig. 4, “an angle of the non-diffusion region (M2b and/or M2c) relative to a central axis of the second light diffusion element (M2) is greater than an angle of the diffusion region (M2a) relative to the central axis of the second light diffusion element (M2; Fig. 4).”
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