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
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 114442203 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Miyashita et al. (US 2014/0204592 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a light source (40, figure 3);
A Fresnel lens group (100, 11, 12, 13, figure 2) that parallelizes a beam output from the light source (paragraph 0046);
A light incident side polarizer (62, figure 3 is a half wave plate; or 64 which is a phase compensation plate and as such will adjust polarization in the light passing through it; paragraph 0067) that transmits the beam that exits out of the Fresnel lens group;
A light modulator (65, figure 3, paragraph 0067) that modulates the beam passing through the light incident side polarizer to form a projection image;
A light exiting side polarizer (64 also functions as the light exit side polarizer for the reflective LCD shown in figure 3) that transmits the beam modulated by the light modulator; and
A projection lens (66, figure 3) that projects the beam passing through the light exiting side polarizer; and
Wherein the Fresnel lens group includes a first Fresnel lens (11, 21, figure 2) having a positive power (paragraph 0061, the light source described emits divergent light, see paragraph 0047 [large angle light], therefore the Fresnel lenses will have to be positive power to collimate) and disposed at a position closest to the light source in the Fresnel lens group (11, figure 3); and a second Fresnel lens (12, or 13, figure 2 and 3) having positive power (see reasoning for positive power described above with respect to the first Fresnel lens) and disposed at a position shifted from the first Fresnel lens toward the light modulator (see 12 or 13, figures 2 and 3).
Li does not specify a light incident surface of the first Fresnel lens has a Fresnel surface and a light exiting surface of the first Fresnel lens does not have a Fresnel surface.
Miyashita teaches a collimating Fresnel lens wherein the incidence surface (10a, figure 4) has a Fresnel surface (14, figure 1, figure 4) and the light exiting surface does not have a Fresnel surface (10b, figure 1; paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first Fresnel lens of Li so that the light incident surface was the Fresnel surface as taught in Miyashita in order to improve collimation.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Miyashita teaches the claimed invention except for specifying the light incident surface of the second Fresnel lens (12 or 13, figure 3) has a Fresnel surface and the light exiting surface of the second Fresnel lens does not have a Fresnel surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Fresnel lens of Li in view of Miyashita to make the Fresnel surface the first surface instead of the second surface, since it has been held mere reversal of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPAQ 1995).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the second Fresnel lens of Li in view of Miyashita to reverse the first and second surfaces in order to improve collimation.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the focal length of the first Fresnel lens is equal to the focal length of the second Fresnel lens (paragraph 0052, the ranges of the focal lengths overlap at the end points obviating the case that the first focal length could be 3 mm and the second 3 or the first could be 4 and the focal length of element 13 could be 4).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the light incident surface of the second Fresnel lens does not have a Fresnel surface (paragraph 0049); and
A light exiting surface of the second Fresnel lens has a Fresnel surface (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the focal length of the first Fresnel lens is longer than a focal length of the second Fresnel lens (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 6 Li in view of Miyashita teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the first Fresnel lens and the second Fresnel lens are so integrated with each other into a single Fresnel lens that the light exiting surface of the first Fresnel lens is seamlessly coupled to the light incident surface of the second Fresnel lens. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display system of Li in view of Miyashita to integrate the first and second Fresnel lenses, since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction for articles which were formerly separate structures would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 114 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
In this case it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the collimating element of Li in view of Miyashita to make the first and second collimating lenses integral in order to make the projection system more compact.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the Fresnel lens group includes a third Fresnel lens (13, figure 3) disposed at a position shifted from the second Fresnel lens toward the light modulator, and
The third Fresnel lens has a positive power (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches a polarization conversion optical system (62, figure 3) that is disposed between the Fresnel lens group (11, 12, 13, figure 3) and the light incident side polarizer (64, figure 3) and converts polarization directions of the beam that exits out of the Fresnel lens group.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 114442203 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Miyashita et al. (US 2014/0204592 A1), as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Oberg et al. (US 2013/0021890 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Miyashita does not specify an adjustment mechanism that changes an axial distance between the first Fresnel lens and the second Fresnel lens.
Oberg teaches an actuator that changes that axial position of a collimator (151, figure 1). Applying the actuator to one of the Fresnel lenses of Li in view of Miyashita would allow shifting of the Fresnel lenses with respect to one another.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Fresnel lens of Li in view of Miyashita to use an actuator to adjust the position of the Fresnel lens in order to compensate for aberrations (paragraph 0020).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 114442203 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Miyashita et al. (US 2014/0204592 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mihalakis (US 2006/0274273 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Miyashita does not specify a polarization conversion optical system that is disposed between the light source and the Fresnel lens group and converts polarization directions of the beam output from the light source.
Mihalakis teaches a polarization conversion optical system (65, 66, and 67, figure 1) that is disposed between the light source and the subsequent optical elements.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Li in view of Miyashita to put a Polarization conversion element such as taught in Mihalakis between the light source and the Fresnel lens group in order to make the polarization of the light uniform to improve light utilization at the modulator.
Regarding claim 11, Mihalakis further teaches the polarization conversion optical system includes a polarization beam splitter (65, figure 1)) that directly transmits one linearly polarized light component out of polarized light components contained in the beam incident thereon, and reflects another linearly polarized light component in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis (figure 1, rightward in the figure), a total reflection mirror (66, figure 1) that reflects the other linearly polarized light component reflected off the polarization beam splitter in a direction parallel to the optical axis, (AX2, figure 1), and a retardation film (67, figure 1) that convers the other linearly polarized light component reflected off the total reflection mirror into the one linearly polarized light component.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Li in view of Miyashita to put a Polarization conversion element such as taught in Mihalakis between the light source and the Fresnel lens group in order to make the polarization of the light uniform to improve light utilization at the modulator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 12/04/2025