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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 8 and 13-16 are directed to allowable subject matter. Claim 8 is objected to; and Claims 13-16 are allowed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/15/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 15 February 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that line 1 of the claims be changed to “The laser device according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of diffractive portions are in a step”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that line 1 of the claims be changed to “The laser device according to claim 11, wherein a formula for calculating a height of each of the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, the examiner suggests that “is in rectangular” be changed to “is rectangular”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that “and” be added at the end of line 6 after the semi-colon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a laser device wherein the diffractive optical element is disposed at a light-output side of the first light-combining mirror group, the diffractive optical element is movable, and the diffractive optical element is configured to enable the diffractive areas in the diffractive optical element to shape the laser beams of corresponding colors at different times.
Claim 13 is allowed for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a laser device comprising a diffractive optical element disposed at a light-output side of the first light-combining mirror group and configured to shape the laser beams combined by the first light-combining mirror group and transmit light spots of the shaped laser beams to a same position.
Claims 14-16 are allowed for at least the reason that they depend from claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application No. 19/064716 (published as US 2025/0199390 to Li et al.) (hereafter Li). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Li claims a laser device, comprising: a plurality of light-emitting components, configured to emit laser beams of various colors (see at least claim 1, lines 2-3); and a diffractive optical element disposed on light-output paths of the plurality of light-emitting components, wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a plurality of diffractive areas, each of the plurality of diffractive areas corresponding to one color laser beam; and the diffractive optical element is configured to shape incident laser beams (see at least claim 1, lines 16-21, and claim 13, where the beam reshaping member is a diffractive optical element).
Regarding claim 19, Li claims a laser projection apparatus, comprising: a light source assembly comprising the laser device as defined in claim 1 (see above), wherein the light source assembly is configured to emit an illumination beam (see claim 1, lines 2-3); a light modulating assembly, configured to modulate the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to acquire a projection beam, wherein the light modulating assembly comprises a light modulation device configured to modulate the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to acquire the projection beam (see claim 1, lines 7-9); and a projection lens, configured to perform imaging with the projection beam (see claim 1, lines 10-12).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-3, 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise).
Regarding claim 1, Kaise discloses a laser device comprising a plurality of light-emitting components, configured to emit laser beams of various colors (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0025], where 11R, 11G, and 11B are red, green, and blue lasers); and a diffractive optical element disposed on light-output paths of the plurality of light-emitting components, wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a plurality of diffractive areas, each of the plurality of diffractive areas corresponding to one color laser beam; and the diffractive optical element is configured to shape incident laser beams (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0058]-[0060], where diffractive optical element 21 has a plurality of diffractive areas 21R, 21G, and 21B for each of the laser colors).
Regarding claim 2¸ Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kaise also discloses that the plurality of light-emitting components are configured to emit a first-color laser beam, a second-color laser beam, and a third-color laser beam; and the plurality of diffractive areas comprise a first diffractive area, a second diffractive area, and a third diffractive area, wherein the first diffractive area, the second diffractive area, and the third diffractive area correspond to the first-color laser beam, the second-color laser beam, and the third-color laser beam, respectively (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0025] and [0058]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Kaise also discloses that the first diffractive area is disposed on a light-output path of a light-emitting component emitting the first-color laser beam, and the first diffractive area is configured to shape the first-color laser beam; the second diffractive area is disposed on a light-output path of a light-emitting component emitting the second-color laser beam, and the second diffractive area is configured to shape the second-color laser beam; and the third diffractive area is disposed on a light-output path of a light emitting component emitting the third-color laser beam, and the third diffractive area is configured to shape the third-color laser beam; wherein the first diffractive area, the second diffractive area, and the third diffractive area are configured to transmit the shaped laser beams to a same position (see at least Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Kaise also discloses that the first-color laser beam is one of a green laser beam and a blue laser beam, the second color laser beam is the other of the green laser beam and the blue laser beam, and the third color laser beam is a red laser beam (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kaise also discloses that the diffractive optical element comprises a substrate (see at least paragraph [0064] and a plurality of diffractive portions disposed on the substrate (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0064], where 21R, 21G, and 21B are diffractive portions of the diffractive optical element), wherein the plurality of diffractive portions are distributed in a two-dimensional matrix (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kaise also discloses a light source assembly comprising the laser device as defined in claim 1, wherein the light source assembly is configured to emit an illumination beam (see at least Fig. 1); a light modulating assembly, configured to modulate the illumination beam is emitted by the light source assembly to acquire a projection beam, wherein the light modulating assembly comprises a light modulation device configured to modulate the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to acquire the projection beam (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0077], where liquid crystal display panel 40 is a light modulating assembly); and a projection lens, configured to perform imaging with the projection beam (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0079], where 50 is a projection lens).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise) as applied to claims 1 and/or 3 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (US 2020/0083664) (hereafter Miura).
Regarding claim 4, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kaise also discloses a collimating lens disposed above the diffractive optical elements and configured to collimate the incident laser beams, wherein the diffractive optical element is disposed closer to the lasers than the collimating lens (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0066], where field lens 31 is a collimating lens).
Kaise does not specifically disclose a package comprising: a base plate, a frame disposed on the base plate and being configured to form an accommodating space with the base plate to accommodate the plurality of light-emitting components, and a light-transmitting layer disposed at a side of the frame distal from the base plate and being configured to enclose the accommodating space, wherein the collimating lens is disposed above the light-transmitting layer and the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the light-transmitting layer distal from the collimating lens.
However, Miura teaches a laser device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2) comprising a package comprising a base plate (see at least Figs. 1, 2, and 5, where the bottom portion of base 10 is a base plate), a frame disposed on the base plate and being configured to form an accommodating space with the base plate (see at least Figs. 1, 2, and 5, where the side portions of base 10 are a frame) to accommodate a plurality of light-emitting components (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038], where 20 and 30 are lasers), and a light-transmitting layer disposed at a side of the frame distal from the base plate and being configured to enclose the accommodating space (see at least Figs. 1 and 5 and paragraph [0054], where cover member 70 is light transmissive), and a collimating lens disposed above the light-transmitting layer and configured to collimate the incident laser beams (see at least Figs. 1 and 5 and paragraph [0081], where lenses 82 are collimating lenses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise to include the teachings of Miura so that the device comprises a package comprising: a base plate, a frame disposed on the base plate and being configured to form an accommodating space with the base plate to accommodate the plurality of light-emitting components, and a light-transmitting layer disposed at a side of the frame distal from the base plate and being configured to enclose the accommodating space, wherein the collimating lens is disposed above the light-transmitting layer for the purpose of forming a compact package that can be used in a variety of applications such as projectors and displays (see at least paragraph [0003] of Miura).
Kaise as modified by Miura does not specifically disclose that the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the light-transmitting layer distal from the collimating lens.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise as modified by Miura so that the position of the diffractive optical element is rearranged relative to the light-transmitting layer for the purpose of being obvious to try one of a finite number of possibilities. Since Kaise teaches that the diffractive optical element is between the lasers and the collimating lens and Miura teaches that the light-transmitting layer is between the lasers and the collimating lens, then there are only two possible configurations for which side of the light-transmitting layer the diffractive optical element is disposed on.
Regarding claim 5, Kaise as modified by Miura discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Miura also teaches that the collimating lens comprises a collimating lens group disposed at a side of the light-transmitting layer distal from the light-emitting components and configured to collimate the incident laser beams, and the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the light transmitting layer proximal to the light-emitting components (see at least Figs. 1 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise as modified by Miura to include the further teachings of Miura so that the collimating lens comprises a collimating lens group disposed at a side of the light-transmitting layer distal from the light-emitting components and configured to collimate the incident laser beams, and the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the light transmitting layer proximal to the light-emitting components for the purpose of collimating each laser beam separately.
Regarding claim 7, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Kaise does not specifically disclose a light-output surface, wherein the laser beams exit from the light-output surface, and the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the light-output surface distal from the light-emitting components and spaced apart from the light-output surface.
However, Miura teaches a laser device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2) comprising a light-output surface, wherein the laser beams exit from the light-output surface and an optical element disposed at a side of the light-output surface distal from the light-emitting components and spaced apart from the light-output surface (see at least Figs. 1 and 5, where cover 70 is a light-output surface and lenses 82 are optical elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise to include the teachings of Miura so that the device comprises a light-output surface, wherein the laser beams exit from the light-output surface, and the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the light-output surface distal from the light-emitting components and spaced apart from the light-output surface for the purpose of protecting the laser components from environmental contaminants by enclosing them under a light-output surface.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (US 2020/0083664) (hereafter Miura) and Chen et al. (US 2009/0153977) (hereafter Chen).
Regarding claim 6, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kaise also discloses a collimating lens disposed above the diffractive optical elements and configured to collimate the incident laser beams, wherein the diffractive optical element is disposed closer to the lasers than the collimating lens (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0066], where field lens 31 is a collimating lens).
Kaise does not specifically disclose a package comprising: a base plate, a frame disposed on the base plate and forming an accommodating space with the base plate to accommodate the plurality of light-emitting components, a Fresnel structure disposed on a surface of the diffractive optical element proximal to the light-emitting components and configured to collimate the incident laser beams, wherein the diffractive optical element is disposed at a side of the frame distal from the base plate to enclose the accommodating space.
However, Miura teaches a laser device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2) comprising a package comprising a base plate (see at least Figs. 1, 2, and 5, where the bottom portion of base 10 is a base plate), a frame disposed on the base plate and being configured to form an accommodating space with the base plate (see at least Figs. 1, 2, and 5, where the side portions of base 10 are a frame) to accommodate a plurality of light-emitting components (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038], where 20 and 30 are lasers), and a layer disposed at a side of the frame distal from the base plate to enclose the accommodating space (see at least Figs. 1 and 5 and paragraph [0054], cover member 70), and a collimating lens disposed above the light-transmitting layer and configured to collimate the incident laser beams (see at least Figs. 1 and 5 and paragraph [0081], where lenses 82 are collimating lenses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise to include the teachings of Miura so that the device comprises a package comprising: a base plate, a frame disposed on the base plate and being configured to form an accommodating space with the base plate to accommodate the plurality of light-emitting components, and the diffractive optical element disposed at a side of the frame distal from the base plate to enclose the accommodating space for the purpose of forming a compact package that can be used in a variety of applications such as projectors and displays (see at least paragraph [0003] of Miura).
Kaise as modified by Miura does not specifically disclose a Fresnel structure disposed on a surface of the diffractive optical element proximal to the light-emitting components and configured to collimate the incident laser beams.
However, Chen teaches a light projection device (see at least the abstract) comprising lasers (see at least paragraph [0028]) and Fresnel lenses to collimate the laser beams (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise as modified by Miura to include the teachings of Chen so that the device comprises a Fresnel structure configured to collimate the incident laser beams for the purpose of substituting one known collimating optical element for another in order to obtain predictable results such as a flatter and more compact device.
Kaise as modified by Miura and Chen does not specifically disclose that the Fresnel structure is disposed on a surface of the diffractive optical element proximal to the light-emitting components.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise as modified by Miura and Chen so that the Fresnel structure is disposed on a surface of the diffractive optical element proximal to the light-emitting components for the purpose of ensuring the shape of the laser beam is not altered by passing through the Fresnel structure after being formed by the diffractive optical element.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Miyasaka et al. (US 2013/0182327) (hereafter Miyasaka).
Regarding claim 11, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Kaise does not specifically disclose that the plurality of diffractive portions are in a step shape, and a number of the plurality of diffractive portions is an exponential multiple of 2.
However, Miyasaka teaches a diffractive optical element wherein the plurality of diffractive portions are in a step shape, and a number of the plurality of diffractive portions is an exponential multiple of 2 (see at least Fig. 6 and paragraph [0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise to include the teachings of Miyasaka so that the plurality of diffractive portions are in a step shape, and a number of the plurality of diffractive portions is an exponential multiple of 2 for the purpose of optimizing the diffractive optical element to diffract the desired wavelengths of light.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise), in view of Miyasaka et al. (US 2013/0182327) (hereafter Miyasaka) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Matsubara et al. (US 2009/0135701) (hereafter Matsubara).
Regarding claim 12, Kaise as modified by Miyasaka discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Kaise as modified by Miyasaka does not specifically disclose the claimed formula for calculating a height of each of the diffractive portions.
However, Matsubara teaches a diffractive optical element with diffractive portions in a step shape, wherein the height of each portion is calculated similarly to the claimed formula (see at least Fig. 5, where the height formula is d=m·λ·3/(n3 – 1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise as modified by Miyasaka to include the teachings of Matsubara so that a height of each of the diffractive portions is determined based on the claimed formula for the purpose of deriving a formula known in the art to represent the physical properties of a diffractive grating with a step shape.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qipeng et al. (CN 210465983, all citations are to the English language translation) made of record in the IDS filed 2/15/2024 (hereafter Qipeng).
Regarding claim 17, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kaise also discloses a light modulating assembly, configured to modulate the illumination beam by the light source assembly to acquire a projection beam, wherein the light modulating assembly comprising a light modulation device configured to modulate the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to acquire the projection beam (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0077], where liquid crystal display panel 40 is a light modulating assembly), and a light receiving surface of the light modulating assembly is rectangular (see at least Fig. 2) and a projection lens, configured to perform imaging with the projection beam (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0079], where 50 is a projection lens).
Kaise does not specifically disclose a light source assembly, configured to emit an illumination beam, comprising a plurality of laser device as defined in claim 1 and a second light-combining mirror group disposed at an intersection of laser beams emitted by the plurality of laser devices and configured to combine the laser beams emitted by the plurality of laser devices.
However, Qipeng teaches a light source coupling structure comprising a plurality of laser diode arrays and a light-combining mirror group (see at least Fig. 1 and the abstract, A and C are the laser diode arrays and B is the light combining mirror).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kaise to include the teachings of Qipeng so that a laser projection apparatus comprises a light source assembly, configured to emit an illumination beam, comprising a plurality of laser device as defined in claim 1 and a second light-combining mirror group disposed at an intersection of laser beams emitted by the plurality of laser devices and configured to combine the laser beams emitted by the plurality of laser devices for the purpose of increasing the intensity of the light emitted.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise) in view of Qipeng et al. (CN 210465983, all citations are to the English language translation) made of record in the IDS filed 2/15/2024 (hereafter Qipeng) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0146921) (hereafter Yu).
Regarding claim 18, Kaise as modified by Qipeng discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
Kaise as modified by Qipeng does not specifically disclose that the light modulating assembly further comprises: a reflecting assembly disposed at a light-output side of the light source assembly, wherein the reflecting assembly comprises a reflecting mirror or a total-reflection prism assembly, and the reflecting assembly is configured to reflect the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to the light modulation device at a set; and a lens assembly disposed between the light source assembly and the reflecting assembly, and configured to collimate and then converge the illumination beam, before the illumination beam exits to the reflecting assembly.
However, Yu teaches a projection system comprising a light modulating assembly that comprises a reflecting assembly disposed at a light-output side of the light source assembly, wherein the reflecting assembly comprises a reflecting mirror or a total-reflection prism assembly, and the reflecting assembly is configured to reflect the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to the light modulation device at a set angle (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0049], where spatial light modulator 51a includes total internal reflection prism 53a); and a lens assembly disposed between the light source assembly and the reflecting assembly, and configured to collimate and then converge the illumination beam, before the illumination beam exits to the reflecting assembly (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0049], where relay lens group 34 is the lens assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser projection apparatus of Kaise as modified by Qipeng to include the teachings of Yu so that the light modulating assembly further comprises: a reflecting assembly disposed at a light-output side of the light source assembly, wherein the reflecting assembly comprises a reflecting mirror or a total-reflection prism assembly, and the reflecting assembly is configured to reflect the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to the light modulation device at a set; and a lens assembly disposed between the light source assembly and the reflecting assembly, and configured to collimate and then converge the illumination beam, before the illumination beam exits to the reflecting assembly for the purpose of using a known optical path structure to generate a desired image via the spatial light modulator and project that image at a desired distance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaise (US 2009/0161033) (hereafter Kaise) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0146921) (hereafter Yu).
Regarding claim 20, Kaise discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Kaise does not specifically disclose that the light modulating assembly further comprises: a reflecting assembly disposed at a light-output side of the light source assembly, wherein the reflecting assembly comprises a reflecting mirror or a total-reflection prism assembly, and the reflecting assembly is configured to reflect the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to the light modulation device at a set; and a lens assembly disposed between the light source assembly and the reflecting assembly, and configured to collimate and then converge the illumination beam, before the illumination beam exits to the reflecting assembly.
However, Yu teaches a projection system comprising a light modulating assembly that comprises a reflecting assembly disposed at a light-output side of the light source assembly, wherein the reflecting assembly comprises a reflecting mirror or a total-reflection prism assembly, and the reflecting assembly is configured to reflect the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to the light modulation device at a set angle (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0049], where spatial light modulator 51a includes total internal reflection prism 53a); and a lens assembly disposed between the light source assembly and the reflecting assembly, and configured to collimate and then converge the illumination beam, before the illumination beam exits to the reflecting assembly (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0049], where relay lens group 34 is the lens assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser projection apparatus of Kaise to include the teachings of Yu so that the light modulating assembly further comprises: a reflecting assembly disposed at a light-output side of the light source assembly, wherein the reflecting assembly comprises a reflecting mirror or a total-reflection prism assembly, and the reflecting assembly is configured to reflect the illumination beam emitted by the light source assembly to the light modulation device at a set; and a lens assembly disposed between the light source assembly and the reflecting assembly, and configured to collimate and then converge the illumination beam, before the illumination beam exits to the reflecting assembly for the purpose of using a known optical path structure to generate a desired image via the spatial light modulator and project that image at a desired distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872