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 .
Acknowledgement made of amendment filed 4/06/2026.
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyubarsky et al. (US 2022/0171265 A1) in view of Dross (US 2024/0125454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lyubarsky teaches a light source (101, figure 1) that outputs light;
A light modulation device (110, 173, figure 1) that includes a color filter (110, figure 1) and modulates (via 173, figure 1; paragraph 0023) based on image information to generate color image light;
A first optical system (109, figure 1) which is provided on an optical path of the light between the light source and the light modulation device and which the light output from the light source enters (via 105, figure 1; paragraph 0023);
And a projection optical apparatus (115, figure 1, paragraph 0023) that projects the color image light output from the light modulation device, wherein
The first optical system includes
A reflection element (109, figure 1, paragraph 0023) that includes a light incident surface, (side of 109 adjacent to 105, figure 1), a light exiting surface (side of 109 adjacent to 110, figure 1) having an area greater than an area of the light incident section (109, figure 2B; paragraph 0027); and a reflection surface (paragraph 0024, ‘internally reflective’) and reflects the light incident via the light incident surface off the reflection surface to output the reflected light via, the light exiting surface (208, figure 2B).
And the reflection surface includes first, second third and fourth reflection surface corresponding to four sides of the rectangular shape (109, figure 1).
Lyubarsky does not teach the second optical system which is provided on the optical path of the light between the first optical system and the light modulation device and which outputs the light output from the first optical system toward the light modulation device; and the second optical system includes a first lens which has positive power, which part of the light output from the first optical system enters and which has a first principle point, and a second lens which has positive power, which part of the light output from the first optical system enters, and which has a second principle point at a position where the second principal point does not coincide with the first principal point when viewed in a direction along an optical axis of the light modulation device, nor the positions of the first to fifth lenses.
Dross teaches the second optical system (4, figure 3) which is provided on the optical path of the light between the first optical system and the light modulation device (upon modification to use the output structure of Dross, the second optical system 4, would be immediately after the light tunnel of Lyubarsky inasmuch as in Dross the second optical system attaches to the first optical system) and which outputs the light output (paragraph 0037, for 4 being the light exit surface) from the first optical system toward the light modulation device; and the second optical system includes a first lens (element 5, see annotated figure 3 of Dross below) which has positive power (5 is convex, paragraph 0037 so it’s got positive power), which part of the light output from the first optical system enters and which has a first principle point (implicit that the separate lenses have principle points), and a second lens (see annotated figure 3 of Dross below) which has positive power (each lens is convex), which part of the light output from the first optical system enters, and which has a second principle point at a position where the second principal point does not coincide with the first principal point (the lenses are discrete lenses separate from one other in the plane of the output face of 3, therefore they have separate and distinct principal points necessarily separated from one another in the plane of the output face) when viewed in a direction along an optical axis of the light modulation device;
PNG
media_image1.png
386
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second optical system includes at least five lenses (see annotated figure 3 above).
the position of the first lens corresponds to positions of the light incident section and the light exiting section (see annotated figure 3 above), and
A position of the second to fifth lens corresponds to a position of the first to fourth reflection surfaces respectively (see annotated figure 3 above where each of the secondary lenses is arranged along the edge of the light tunnel).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Lyubarsky in view of Dross therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the first optical system is separate from the second optical system so that the reflection element includes a light incident and a light exiting surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first optical system separate from the second optical system to realize the light exiting surface, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the illumination system of Lyubarsky in view of Dross to make the light tunnel separate from the second optical system in order to make light distribution adjustable to accommodate different light sources.
Regarding claim 2, Lyubarsky does not teach the first principle point is located on the optical axis.
Dross teaches the first principle point is located on the optical axis (see first lens in annotated figure 3 above).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 3, Lyubarsky does not teach the second optical system which further includes at least five lenses.
Dross further teaches the second optical system includes a third lens (at least three lenses are shown in figure 3 above), which part of the light output from the first optical system enters, and which has a third principal point at a position where the third principal point does not coincide with the first principal point or the second principal point when viewed in the direction along the optical axis (none of the secondary lenses shown in figure 3 above have coincident principal points).
The second and third principal points are at positions annularly opposed around the optical axis when viewed in the direction along the optical axis (see figure 5C).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Lyubarsky in view of Dross therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying the rotationally symmetry of the annular arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the lenses rotationally symmetrical, since it has been held that rearranging pats of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 Lyubarsky in view of Dross to make the lenses symmetrical in order to improve the homogeneity of the illumination light.
Regarding claim 4, Lyubarsky teaches that the effective display region of the light modulation device has a rectangular shape (173, figure 1 is a rectangle) when viewed in the direction along the optical axis.
Lyubarsky does not specify that the second, first and third principal points are arranged along a long side direction of the rectangular shape.
Dross teaches the second, first and third principal points are arranged along a long side direction of the rectangular shape (see annotated figure 3 above wherein there are a plurality of lenses two of which are arranged along the line bisecting the output face which crosses the first principal point).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 5, Lyubarsky does not teach the second optical system which further includes at least five lenses.
Dross further teaches a fourth lens which has positive power (see annotated figure 3 above wherein there are at least 4 secondary lenses labeled), which part of the light output from the first optical system enters, and which has a fourth principal point at a position where the fourth principal point does not coincide with the first principal point through the third principal point when viewed in the direction along the optical axis (all of the labeled secondary lenses are at the respective points of the cross formed by bisecting the output end of the light tunnel along the length and width directions), and
A fifth lens (see annotated figure 3 above where there are 4 secondary lenses labeled) which has positive power, which part of the light output form the first optical system enters, and which has a fifth principal point at a position which does not coincide with the first to fourth principal points when viewed in the direction along the optical axis, the fourth and fifth principal points are at positions annularly opposed around the optical axis when viewed in the direction along the optical axis (see figure 5c), and
The fourth, first and fifth principal points are arranged along a short side direction of the rectangular shape (see annotated figure 3 above wherein there are a plurality of lenses two of which are arranged along the line bisecting the output face which crosses the first principal point).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Lyubarsky in view of Dross therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying the rotationally symmetry of the annular arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the lenses rotationally symmetrical, since it has been held that rearranging pats of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 Lyubarsky in view of Dross to make the lenses symmetrical in order to improve the homogeneity of the illumination light.
Regarding claim 6, Lyubarsky teaches the light incident section (109, figure 1) and the light exiting section (208, figure 2C) each have a rectangular shape when viewed in the direction along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 7, Lyubarsky does not teach the lenses that constitute the second optical system are each convex lenses.
Dross teaches the lenses that constitute the second optical system are each convex lenses (5 is convex, paragraph 0037).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 9, Lyubarsky does not teach the lenses that constitute the second optical system are formed of an integral member.
Dross teaches the lenses that constitute the second optical system are formed of an integral member (4, figure 3).
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 Lyubarsky to use the light tunnel output structure of Dross in order to improve homogeneity in the light source (paragraph 0010).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyubarsky et al. (US 2022/0171265 A1) in view of Dross (US 2024/0125454 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gahagan et al. (US 2018/0267362 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lyubarsky in view of Dross does not teach the lenses that constitute the second optical system are each Fresnel lenses.
Gahagan teaches a collimation optic in which the lenses of an array of lenses are each Fresnel lenses (120, figure 6; paragraph 0025).
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 Lyubarsky in view of Dross to make the lenses Fresnel lenses such as taught in Gahagan in order to make the system more compact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Lyubarsky lacks any downstream multi-lens system tailored to its specific internal reflection facets, and that Dross uses a honeycomb like array of microlenses to provided color mixing, Examiner notes that the multi-lens system of the claimed invention merely requires that the positions of the lenses correspond to certain positions on the light tunnel. As long as there are at least five lenses which spatially correspond to the facets of the light tunnel, then the limitations of the claim are taught.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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 5/02/2026
Prosecution Insights