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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the optical path deflection surface on the magnification side’ and “the optical path deflection surface on the reduction side” in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has failed to previously define the position of the two optical path deflection surfaces. In an effort to promote compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted a first optical path deflection surface as being position closer to the magnification side with respect to a second optical path deflection surface.
With regard to dependent claims 10, 11, 14 and 15, claims 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 2 and therefore inherit all of the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
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, 6, 7, 10-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagatoshi (U.S. Patent Number 10,955,731).
With regard to independent claim 1, Nagatoshi teaches a projection optical system that projects an image, which is displayed on a display surface of a display element on a reduction side, onto a projection surface on a magnification side (column 4, lines 51-58 and Figure 1), wherein the projection optical system does not include a reflecting surface having a power (Figure 1, elements R1 and R2 are reflecting surfaces without refractive power), the projection optical system includes at least one optical path deflection surface (Figure 1, elements R1 and R2), which deflects an optical path by 90 degrees (Figure 1), in the optical path of the projection optical system, and assuming that a sum of thicknesses of all optical elements on an optical axis included in a range from a lens surface closest to the magnification side in the projection optical system to a lens surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system is ΣTHe, a height of a maximum effective ray on the display surface from the optical axis is Imax, and a focal length of the projection optical system is f, where f is a value at a wide angle end in a case where the projection optical system is a variable magnification optical system, and mm is a unit of length, satisfying the following conditional expressions: ΣTHe < 70mm (columns 9 and 10, Table 1, wherein ΣTHe = 32.006) and 1.7 < Imax/|f| (column 19, Table 17, wherein Imax = 2.600, |f| = 1.000 and Imax/|f| = 2.600).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein the projection optical system includes only two optical path deflection surfaces in the optical path of the projection optical system (Figure 1, elements R1 and R2), and assuming that a distance on the optical axis from the optical path deflection surface on the magnification side to the optical path deflection surface on the reduction side is d1, and a distance on the optical axis from the optical path deflection surface on the reduction side to the lens surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system is d2, where d1 and d2 are values at the wide angle end in a case where the projection optical system is a variable magnification optical system, and satisfying the conditional expressions: d1 < 70mm (columns 9 and 10, wherein d1 = 31.7766) and d2 < 100mm (columns 9 and 10, wherein d2 = 20.689).
With regard to dependent claim 6, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein an intermediate image is formed on an inside of the projection optical system (column 5, lines 1-6 and Figure 1, element M).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 6, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein the projection optical system includes only two optical path deflection surfaces in the optical path of the projection optical system (Figure 1, elements R1 and R2), and the intermediate image is formed on the optical path between the optical path deflection surface on the magnification side and a surface adjacent to the reduction side of the optical path deflection surface on the reduction side (Figure 1, element M formed between elements R1 and R2).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 2, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein at least one of the optical path deflection surfaces is a surface of a reflection mirror (column 5, lines 13-16).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 2, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein at least one of the optical path deflection surfaces is a surface of a prism (column 5, lines 13-16).
With regard to dependent claim 12, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 30 mm < ΣTHe < 70mm (columns 9 and 10, Table 1, wherein ΣTHe = 32.006).
With regard to dependent claim 13, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 2 < Imax/|f| < 3.5 (column 19, Table 17, wherein Imax = 2.600, |f| = 1.000 and Imax/|f| = 2.600).
With regard to dependent claim 14, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 10mm < d1 < 50mm (columns 9 and 10, wherein d1 = 31.7766).
With regard to dependent claim 15, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 20mm < d2 < 75mm (columns 9 and 10, wherein d2 = 20.689).
With regard to dependent claim 20, Nagatoshi teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches a projection type display device comprising such a projection optical system (column 4, lines 18-20 and Figure 13).
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)(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, 5, 10-12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yokoyama (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0251460).
With regard to independent claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a projection optical system that projects an image, which is displayed on a display surface of a display element on a reduction side, onto a projection surface on a magnification side (page 7, paragraph [0108] and Figure 1), wherein the projection optical system does not include a reflecting surface having a power (Figure 1, elements PR1 and PR2 are reflecting surfaces without refractive power), the projection optical system includes at least one optical path deflection surface (Figure 1, elements PR1 and PR2), which deflects an optical path by 90 degrees (Figure 1), in the optical path of the projection optical system, and assuming that a sum of thicknesses of all optical elements on an optical axis included in a range from a lens surface closest to the magnification side in the projection optical system to a lens surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system is ΣTHe, a height of a maximum effective ray on the display surface from the optical axis is Imax, and a focal length of the projection optical system is f, where f is a value at a wide angle end in a case where the projection optical system is a variable magnification optical system, and mm is a unit of length, satisfying the following conditional expressions: ΣTHe < 70mm (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein ΣTHe = 53.74) and 1.7 < Imax/|f| (page 8, paragraph [0112], wherein Imax = 10.00, |f| = 5.59 and Imax/|f| = 1.79).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein the projection optical system includes only two optical path deflection surfaces in the optical path of the projection optical system (Figure 1, elements PR1 and PR2), and assuming that a distance on the optical axis from the optical path deflection surface on the magnification side to the optical path deflection surface on the reduction side is d1, and a distance on the optical axis from the optical path deflection surface on the reduction side to the lens surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system is d2, where d1 and d2 are values at the wide angle end in a case where the projection optical system is a variable magnification optical system, and satisfying the conditional expressions: d1 < 70mm (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein d1 = 35.8) and d2 < 100mm (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein d2 = 18.9).
With regard to dependent claim 3, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein assuming that a longest diameter of a maximum region capable of display of the image in the display element is DL, the following conditional expression is satisfied: Imax/DL<0.78 (page 8, paragraph [0112], wherein Imax = 10.00; Figure 4 and page 5, paragraph [0083], wherein DL = 15.45, and Imax/DL = 0.65).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein assuming that a sum of thicknesses of all optical elements on the optical axis, which have powers and are included in the range from the lens surface closest to the magnification side in the projection optical system to the lens surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system, is ΣTHpw, and a sum of thicknesses of all optical elements, which have a refractive index of 1.8 or more at a d line, on the optical axis among the optical elements, which have the powers and are included in the range from the lens surface closest to the magnification side in the projection optical system to the lens surface closest to the reduction side in the projection optical system, is ΣTH18, the following conditional expression is satisfied, 0.27 < ΣTH18/ ΣTHpw < 0.5 (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein ΣTH18 = 10.99, ΣTHpw = 27.74 and ΣTH18/ ΣTHpw = 0.396).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 2, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein at least one of the optical path deflection surfaces is a surface of a reflection mirror (page 2, paragraph [0032], lines 5-11 and 19-21).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 2, and further teaches such a projection optical system wherein at least one of the optical path deflection surfaces is a surface of a prism (page 2, paragraph [0032], lines 5-11 and 19-21).
With regard to dependent claim 12, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 30 mm < ΣTHe < 70mm (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein ΣTHe = 53.74).
With regard to dependent claim 14, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 10mm < d1 < 50mm (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein d1 = 35.8).
With regard to dependent claim 18, Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: , 0.3 < ΣTH18/ ΣTHpw < 0.4 (page 7, paragraph [0110], wherein ΣTH18 = 10.99, ΣTHpw = 27.74 and ΣTH18/ ΣTHpw = 0.396).
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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0251460) as applied to claim 3 above.
With regard to dependent claim 16, although Yokoyama teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, Yokoyama fails to teach such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expression: 0.65 < Imax/DL<0.72, however, Yokoyama does teach such a projection optical system wherein Imax/DL = 0.65 (page 8, paragraph [0112], wherein Imax = 10.00; Figure 4 and page 5, paragraph [0083], wherein DL = 15.45, and Imax/DL = 0.65), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the projection optical system, as taught by Yokoyama, since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper.
Although the prior art teaches a projection optical system that projects an image, which is displayed on a display surface of a display element on a reduction side, onto a projection surface on a magnification side, wherein the projection optical system does not include a reflecting surface having a power, the projection optical system includes at least one optical path deflection surface, which deflects an optical path by 90 degrees, in the optical path of the projection optical system, and satisfying the conditional expressions: ΣTHe < 70mm and 1.7 < Imax/|f|, as defined, the prior art fails to teach such a projection optical system satisfying the conditional expressions: -0.05 < (Imax-β x Ymax)/(βxYmax) < 0.05, as defined and claimed in dependent claim 4; -3 < DifE/Imax < -0.2, as defined and claimed in dependent claim 8; or wherein a lens closest to the magnification side has a shape in which a part of a rotationally symmetric shape is absent, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
With regard to dependent claim 17, claim 17 is allowable as it depends, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 4 and therefore inherits all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
With regard to dependent claim 19, claim 19 is allowable as it depends, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 8 and therefore inherits all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang et al (U.S. Patent Number 9,529,180), Minefuji (U.S. Patent Number 10,534,252), Shiokawa et al (U.S. Patent Number 10,539,766), Masui et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0307041), Masui et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0003913) and Nagatoshi et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0063710) all teach projection optical systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
11 December 2025