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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (CN 113641063 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, referred to hereafter as Yan063.
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Yan063 teaches a light source (1, figure 1; or alternatively 11 and 12, figure 14) comprising a plurality of light emitting units (paragraph 0117; or alternatively paragraph 0132-0133), wherein the light emitting unites respectively emit a plurality of light beams (paragraph 0117; or alternatively paragraph 0132-0133);
A light homogenizing device (2a, figure 1; paragraph 0117) comprising a micro-lens array (double-sided compound eye lens, paragraph 0117), wherein the micro lens array element comprises a plurality of micro lenses (24 compound eye units), the light beams irradiate the micro-lens array element, and each of the light beams irradiates at least two of the micro-lenses (one group the light beams emitted from 1 into arbitrary groups of sub bundles size 2 or more of each of the 24 light emitting elements, or alternative paragraph 0116 does say that the light source can irradiate multiple lens elements); and
A light homogenizing element (3, figure 1), wherein the light beams are non-overlapped (paragraph 0117) with each other before being incident on the light homogenizing device, and the light beams are overlapped (inverted image formed by element 4 on the incidence side of 3a, figure 3; paragraph 0108-0110),
An optical engine module (8, 9, figure 1) disposed on a transmission path of the illumination beam to convert the illumination beam into an image beam (paragraph 0119); and
A projection lens (100, figure 1), disposed on a transmission path of the image beam to project the image beam out of the projection device (paragraph 0119).
Regarding claim 3, Yan063 teaches the light homogenizing device further comprises at least one lens (4, figure 1) disposed between the micro-lens array element (2) and the light homogenizing element (3, and the at least one lens has a positive diopter (see figure 1, wherein element 4 converges light so it must be a positive diopter lens).
Regarding claim 4, Yan063 teaches the micro-lenses have the same thickness in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the light homogenizing device (element 2a shows the lenses are the same thickness).
Regarding claim 8, Yan063 teaches a reflector (60, figure 14), wherein the light emitting units comprise a plurality of first light emitting units (on 11), and a plurality of second light emitting units (12, figure 14), and the light beams comprise a plurality of first light beams emitted by the first light emitting units and a plurality of second light beams emitted by the second light emitting units, wherein the second light beams are reflected by the reflector and then incident on the light homogenizing device (2, figure 14)
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) 2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (CN 113641063 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2014/0232996 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yan063 does not specify that the micro-lens array elements have a positive diopter.
Okamoto teaches the micro-lens array elements have a positive diopter (figure 2, 13 converges the light so it must be a positive diopter element).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Yan063 to use a positive diopter lens of Okamoto in order to improve light homogenization in the projection system.
Regarding claim 11, Yan063 teaches the light homogenizing element comprises an integration rod (3, figure 1), and a light incidence surface of the integration rod is rectangular (3a, figure 3).
Yan063 does not teach that the orthogonal projection outline of each of the micro-lenses of the light homogenizing device on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the light homogenizing device is rectangular.
Okamoto teaches that the orthogonal projection outline of each of the micro-lenses of the light homogenizing device on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the light homogenizing device is rectangular (14, figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify he projection system of Yan063 to use the rectangular lenses of Okamoto in order to make the homogenization device easier to manufacture.
Regarding claim 12, Yan063 teaches the light incident surface of the integrator rod has length Ry and width Rz in a first direction and a second direction respectively (see annotated figure 3 below), Ry/Rz = K where K is an arbitrary constant, the light beams irradiate the micro-lens array element and form a spot on a light incident surface of the micro-lens array element, the spot has a length Sy and Width Sz in the first direction and the second direction respectively (see annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yan063 in view of Okamoto therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the illumination system satisfies the formula 0.8 < KxS < 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to satisfy 0.8 < KxS < 3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Yan063 in view of Okamoto to satisfy the claimed formula in order to make the projection system compatible with common projection aspect ratios like 4:3.
Regarding claim 13, Yan063 in view of Okamoto teaches the orthogonal projection outline of each of the microlenses has a length Cy and width Cz in the first direction and the second direction respectively (they are rectangular and so this is implicit from Okamoto).
Yan063 in view of Okamoto therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that Cy/Cz = KxS. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio of Cy/Cz = KxS, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 Yan063 in view of Okamoto to use the ratio for the microlens length and width in order to optimize light homogeneity for the projection system.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (CN 113641063 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Okuda et al. (US 2012/0086917 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yan063 does not specify that the microlens array element is configured to vibrate in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis
Okuda teaches the microlens array element is configured to vibrate in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (paragraph 0351).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projector of Yan063 to use the moving micro-lens array of Okuda in order to reduce speckle noise (paragraph 0351).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (CN 113641063 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0286248 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yan063 does not specify a reflector and a light combining element disposed between the light source and the light homogenizing device, wherein the reflector and the light combining device are configured to enable the light beams to be incident on the light homogenizing device at a same angle.
Lin teaches a reflector (134, 132, figure 4) and a light combining element (126, 124, 122, figure 4) disposed between the light source and the light homogenizing device (150, figure 4), wherein the reflector and the light combining device are configured to enable the light beams to be incident on the light homogenizing device at a same angle (upon combination with the system of Yan063, the reflector and light combining elements would be placed between the light source and converging type lenses shown in both Yan063 and Lin in order to illuminate the entire lens array with light rather than converging the light onto one spot on the lens array).
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 Yan063 to use the light combining elements of Lin in order to make the light source more compact.
Regarding claim 7, Yan063 teaches that the light beams have different light frequency ranges (paragraph 0117).
Yan063 does not specify in the embodiment relied upon the light combing element.
Lin teaches the light combining element is a dichroic mirror (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 Yan063 to use the light combining elements of Lin in order to make the light source more compact.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (CN 113641063 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Maeda (US 2009/0296047 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yan063 teaches light of a first and second light emitting units comprised of a plurality of light sources respectively (11, 12, figure 14), wherein the light form the light emitting elements is combined by a beam combiner (60, figure 14) prior to being incident on the homogenizations structure (2).
Yan063 does not specify a polarization beam splitter, the first light beams are incident on the light homogenizing device after passing through the polarization beam splitter, and the second light beams are reflected by the polarization beam splitter and then incident on the light homogenizing device.
Maeda teaches a polarization beam splitter (93, figure 9) for combining light from different light sources (1, 2, 3, 4, figure 2). Placing the homogenization device after the polarization beam splitter upon combination with Yan063 would allow the light homogenization structures to operate as one device for all the plurality of light sources which could further reduce the number of components in the projector.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection device of Yan063 to use the beam combining architecture of Maeda in order to make the projection system brighter.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda further teaches a first reflector (9, figure 9, and element 32, figure 3, which is part of element 9), a first half wave plate (33, figure 3 and element 9, figure 9) and a first light combining element (13, figure 3) disposed between the first light emitting elements and the PBS (see figure 9), and a second reflector (42, figure 4; and 10, figure 9), a second half wave plate (43, figure 4 and 10, figure 9) and a second light combining element (the upper right 13, figure 9) disposed between the second light emitting units and the PBS (figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection device of Yan063 to use the beam combining architecture of Maeda in order to make the projection system brighter.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (CN 113641063 A), machine translation into English provided by examiner, in view of Yan et al. CN 114967300 A), Machine translation into English provided by examiner, referred to hereafter as Yan300.
Regarding claim 14, Yan063 teaches the outline of a micro lens of a light homogenizing device on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the light homogenizing device is a regular polygon (see figure 2, wherein they are hexagons), and each of internal angles of the regular polygon is greater than or equal to 120 degrees (the internal angles of a regular hexagon are 120 degrees).
Yan063 does not teach the light homogenizing element comprises a lens array.
Yan300 teaches the light homogenizing element is a lens array (4, figure 3 or 31, figure 4).
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 Yan063 to use the second lens array homogenizer of Yan300 in order to improve light uniformity at the display element.
Regarding claim 15, Yan063 teaches the outline of each of the micro-lenses of the light homogenizing device on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the light homogenizing device is a polygon (hexagon) and a plurality of vertices of the polygon forma virtual ellipse (regular polygon shown forms a virtual circle).
Yang063 does not teach that the light homogenizing element comprises a lens array, and a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of the virtual ellipse is greater than 1 and less than 1.1.
Yan300 teaches the light homogenizing element is a lens array (4, figure 3 or 31, figure 4).
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 Yan063 to use the second lens array homogenizer of Yan300 in order to improve light uniformity at the display element.
Yan063 in view of Yan300 therefore teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the ratio of a major axis to a minor axis of the virtual ellipse is greater than 1 and less than 1.1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art ate the time the invention was made to make the ratio of the major to minor axis of the virtual ellipse between 1 and 1.1 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller. 105, USPQ 233.
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 Yan063 in view of Yan300 to make the aspect ratio of the lenses between 1 and 1.1 in order to improve light homogeneity at the modulator surface.
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 2/03/2026